This case has been cited 25 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court has held before that "mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[64] It is settled that the defense of alibi and denial cannot overcome the victim's positive and categorical testimony and identification of the accused-appellant.[65] Presence of other family members is not a valid defense in rape cases since rape may be carried out in the same room where the family members are staying.[66] | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the explicit declaration of AAA that appellant raped her, all that the appellant could muster is the defense of denial. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[62] As against the positive identification and credible testimony of AAA, mere denials of appellant cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We are not swayed. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary value.[20] Thus, the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses cannot be overcome by mere denial or alibi. For alibi to prosper, not only must an accused prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[21] The alibi of the accused, which was supported by the testimony of Baltazar Sabanal, cannot overcome the convincing positive evidence adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of relatives and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the court.[22] | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In answer to AAA's explicit declaration that she was sexually abused by Miranda, the latter merely interposes the defense of denial. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As against the positive identification and credible testimony by the private complainant, mere denials of the accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court.[19] | |||||
|
2007-04-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| AAA's testimony (as corroborated by the testimonies of her mother and Dr. Villaceran). Both courts found that AAA's straightforward testimony was enough to support the conviction of respondent. The testimony of a child witness is given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed.[32] Thus, respondent's belated attempt to controvert the prosecution's evidence will not prosper. | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The exact date when the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential element of the offense of trespass. It is sufficient that the Complaint or Information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[13] Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. A variance between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial does not constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score.[14] Thus, the error invoked by the petitioner in the date of the alleged trespass in the Information is of no grave import, for it is far from being the decisive issue in this case. | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The time of occurrence is not an essential element of rape.[12] This being so, its precise date and hour need not be alleged in the complaint or information.[13] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission."(Italics supplied) | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| First, the precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged.[16] In rape, it is not.[17] Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:"SEC. 11. Date of the commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission." Furthermore, People v. Gianan[18] explained as follows: | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| In light of the positive testimony of Irma showing beyond doubt Nelson's accountability, the latter's bare denial and alibi must fail. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[47] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Based on the record, we find the complaining witness and her mother have been consistent from the very start that there had already been sexual intercourse between Maylene and appellant as early as March of 1995. The testimony of Aurora is candid and forthright, and we are persuaded, like the trial court, that the charge of rape was not a mere fabrication. It is unnatural for a parent, more so a mother, to use her offspring as a tool of malice especially if it will subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and stigma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement.[24] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On the civil liability of the accused Wilfredo Olarte, we note that the trial court merely ordered the payment of moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 in each case but did not award civil indemnity which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Thus, consistent with the current prevailing jurisprudence,[27] accused Wilfredo Olarte must be ordered to pay Cristina Olarte the amount of P75,000.00 in each of the two counts of rape. However, the trial court correctly awarded exemplary damages in the hope of deterring fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behaviors from sexually abusing their daughters.[28] | |||||
|
2001-07-20 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification[37] by prosecution witnesses Agliam and Camungao. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[38] For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[39] The court a quo was not convinced of the appellant's alibi that he was sleeping in his house when the crime was committed at 2:00 o'clock in the morning as appellant presented as witness only his uncle, Amor Bartolome, who allegedly saw him when he arrived home at 11:30 in the evening of May 20, 1995 and that he thereafter slept. However, he did not present as witness his cousin, Gilbert Ulep, who invited him to the stall of Reyna Tamondong, and, Ulep's girlfriend, Reyna Tamondong, who could have possibly testified as to the time when appellant left the stall. Considering that the residence of the appellant was only about one kilometer away or only thirty (30) minutes away by foot from the crime scene, appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the locus criminis at the time that the crime was committed. | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is doctrinally settled that in rape cases the lone testimony of the rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[19] Indeed, from the nature of the crime the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[20] No woman would openly admit that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped unless she was in fact raped.[21] This is especially true when the accusing words are directed against a close relative, especially the father, as in this case.[22] A young unmarried lass does not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody, much less her own father, if it is not true.[23] | |||||
|
2001-05-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and again, we have said that no mother would use her own daughter, especially a child of tender age, and subject her to the shame and the travails of a public trial for rape, if the charge were not true and she were not motivated only by an honest desire to have the perpetrator punished.[12] It is unnatural for a parent, more so a mother, to sacrifice her daughter's honor to give vent merely to a grudge knowing that such an experience would damage her daughter's psyche and disgrace her for life.[13] | |||||
|
2001-03-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The amendment introduced by Republic Act 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, to the crime of rape under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, enumerates the special qualifying circumstances which warrant the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. Since these special qualifying circumstances raise the penalty for the crime of rape by one degree, that is, from reclusion perpetua to the maximum penalty of death, great caution must be taken by the trial court in their evaluation. For these special qualifying circumstances to be appreciated, they must both be specifically pleaded in the information or complaint and duly proven during trial[23] and the degree of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, or equal certainty as the crime itself.[24] | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages are awarded in the hope of deterring other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their own young daughters.[51] However, in the case at bar, we reduce the award of exemplary damages to P25,000.00. | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. xxx.[57] The concurrence of the two special qualifying circumstances, namely the victim's minority and the relationship between the victim and the culprit, increases the penalty of rape to one (1) degree, thus resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. In order to be appreciated as qualifying circumstances, however, these must be properly pleaded in the indictment.[58] In addition, the qualifying circumstances should be duly proved during the trial.[59] | |||||
|
2001-01-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Allegations of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not decisive in a prosecution for rape.[10] First, the precise time of the commission of the rape is not an element of the crime.[11] Second, the precise time or date of the rape has no bearing on its commission.[12] Hence, the exact time the rape was committed is a detail of minor significance.[13] | |||||
|
2000-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It has also been oft said that a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since, customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families[15] that it is unthinkable for a daughter to concoct brazenly a story of rape against her father, if such were not true.[16] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| And even granting that the trial court erred in assuming that AILEEN's hymen was elastic, said argument would not suffice to earn JONNIE his acquittal in light of the positive assertion of AILEEN that JONNIE had sexually abused her against her will. For as between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and a bare denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[20] | |||||
|
2000-11-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As to moral damages, current case law has set the amount of P50,000.00. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape,[56] especially where the rape victim is the offender's own innocent daughter who shall forever be haunted by a most unpleasant memory of a beastly father. In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00[57] must likewise be awarded in the hope of deterring other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their own young daughters. | |||||
|
2000-10-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, it is the former that deserves more credence.[17] As found by the trial court, in which we concur, private complainant Jocelyn was a credible witness. She was very direct, clear and spontaneous in relating how her uncle-in-law, Mariano, raped her. Her testimony reads: Fiscal to witness: Q : Why did you say that Mariano Sarmiento did not treat you well? x x x | |||||
|
2000-08-31 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[30] Nevertheless, all is not lost for CAMILO. While his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon him. The trial court imposed the penalty of death after taking into consideration the age of NIA who was then eleven years old at the time of | |||||