This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-03-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the prosecution's evidence, all that the defense can offer is the denial and alibi of the petitioners. As the Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.[47] For the defense of alibi to prosper at all, it must be proven by the accused that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[48] Unfortunately, petitioners failed to discharge this burden. As aptly elucidated by the court a quo: Even assuming that [petitioner Benjamin, Jr.], indeed worked in the house of Ignacio Baldago in Angustia, Nabua, Camarines Sur on [20 January 1998], his admission that he left work at around 4 p.m. of that day and went home thereafter, opens his alibi to question. Without the benefit of any corroborating witness who could prove he did went home after work and never left his house thereafter leaves one wondering what he did during the two hours from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. This two-hour period is more than enough for [petitioner Benjamin, Jr.] to go to Sta. Elena, Bula, Camarines Sur. Buia and Nahua arc adjacent towns which can even be negotiated for less than 2 hours, and which therefore raises the possibility that [petitioner Benjamin] could have been in Sta. Elena, Bula, at around 6 p.m. of that day even if he indeed worked in the house of Ignacio Baldago. | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellant could only muster the defense of denial and alibi. As this Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the appellant was the author of the crime charged.[39] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. As the Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.[72] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not sufficient that appellant prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity when the crime was perpetrated.[73] Further, the defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused themselves and their relatives like in this case and not by credible persons.[74] | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| This Court has always decreed that the burden to prove the minority age of the victim as of the date of the rape is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[37] There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.[38] Where there was no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak, unreliable and insufficient, this Court was impelled not to impose the death penalty.[39] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In his defense, appellant tries to portray the thirteen (13) year-old victim as an erotically accomplished Lolita and a brazenly enticing Salome with morals so flexible or judgment so depraved so as to be willingly deflowered by a man she considers her own father. Appellant's tale, however, is simply too incredible and fantastic to be believed. It is contradicted by findings of the trial court. Recall that the trial court described private complainant as a "guileless, shy and a simple girl," "incapable of being a tease."[20] The court below likewise found that "(t)here is no proof presented by the accused that Maricar had been so corrupted by her environment and by salacious and titillating materials in print, radio, and television as to make her so depraved and sexually amoral as to entice and seduce her own stepfather."[21] As against these findings, all appellant can offer are self-serving statements portraying complainant as an oversexed young Jezebel. Evidence to be believed should proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness, but must also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience in itself.[22] It is the common experience and observation of mankind that no daughter in her right mind would consent to have carnal knowledge with her own father or stepfather.[23] Thus, the trial court did not err in giving credence not to appellant's hollow protestation but to complainant's testimony that she was threatened and boxed into being appellant's sex slave. No girl would concoct a story of sexual assault, undergo gynecological examination, or subject herself and her family to the trauma and embarrassment concomitant to criminal prosecution unless she speaks the truth.[24] | |||||
|
2000-10-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In several recent cases, we have emphasized the need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives. In People v. Javier,[35] we stressed that the prosecution must present independent proof of the age of the victim, even though it is not contested by the defense. The minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. In People v. Cula,[36] we reiterated that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. Since the record of the case was bereft of any independent evidence thereon, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age, appellant could not be convicted of rape in its qualified form. In People v. Veloso,[37] the victim was alleged to have been only 9 years of age at the time of the rape. It held that the trial court was correct when it ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age other than through the testimony of her father and herself. | |||||
|
2000-09-15 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| "PROS (to the witness) Now Ella, do you recall on August 26, 1997 early morning, where were you at that time? A: I was in our house, sir. Q: Where is your house located? A: In Payatas, Quezon City. Q: Now will you please tell the Court if there was an unusual incident that happened to you on that day? A: Yes, sir. Q: Tell the Court what was that unusual incident? A: After eating dinner where (sic) about to go to sleep and he told me not to sleep yet, sir. Q: Now after that Ella, what happened next, if any? A: He told me to get inside the room of my mother, sir. Q: By the way Mr. (sic) witness, who were with you inside that house at that time? A: My younger siblings, sir. Q: How many siblings do you have? A: Two (2), sir. Q: Could you tell us the names of your siblings? A: I am referring to my brothers Julius and Jordan, sir. Q: After you were told to go to the room of your mother, where was the accused then? A: He was also about to get inside the room, sir. Q: Were you able to enter the room? A: Yes, sir. Q: By the way Madam witness, where was your mother then when you were told by the accused to enter your room's mother (sic)? A: She was not at home during that time, sir. Q: Now, while you were inside the room, can you tell us Madam witness what happened next, if any? A: He ordered me to remove my clothes, sir. Q: Tell us Ella, what were you wearing at that time? A: I was wearing a short and a blouse, sir. Q: When you were told by Melencio Bali-Balita to undress, did you heed his order? A: No, sir. Q: When you defy (sic) the order of the accused, what happened next if any? A: He was the one who remove (sic) my short and my panty, sir. Q: After that Madam witness, what happened if any? A: He also undress, (sic) sir. Q: After the accused undress (sic) himself, what happened next, if any? A: He told me to lie down, sir. Q: Where? A: At the bed of my mother, sir. Q: Were you able to lie down on top of the bed? A: Yes, sir. Q: Now after that, when you were lying down on top of the bed, what happened next, if any? A: He went on top of me, sir. Q: When Melencio Bali-balita the accused went on top of you, what did you do? A: I cried, sir. Q: And what was the reaction of the accused when you were crying then? A: He told me to get up and after that he poke a knife at me. Q: And then after that Ella, what happened if any? COURT: Put on record that the witness is crying. A: He inserted his private organ. ATTY. STA. ANA: (to the Court) Your Honor, we will move to strike out the answer considering that the information says it was not the private organ it was the finger. COURT: Put on record the observation of counsel of the accused. PROS: (to the Witness) Now before the accused inserted his private organ, what did the accused do to you, if any? A: He inserted his finger into my private organ, sir. Q: And what did you tell Ella at that time when the accused was inserting his finger inside your private part, if there was any? A: I felt pain, sir. Q: Now when Melencio went on top of you and inserted his private part on you claimed, what did you feel then? A: It was painful, as if it was being torn. Q: Now when you were feeling pain, what did you do if any? A: I was crying because it was really painful, sir. Q: And how about the accused Melencio Bali-Balita, what was his reaction when you were crying then? A: He told me not to make a noise, sir. Q: Now Ella, after that what happened next if any? A: He ordered me to bend my back facing him. (pinatuwad niya ako) Q: After you were told to bend and turn your back in front of him, what did Melencio Bali-Balita do to you if there was any? A: He place himself on top of me, sir. Q: After that Ella, what happened next if any? A: After that something came out from his private organ something that was sticky. Q: Now after that Ella, what happened next, if any? A: I told him that I am going to urinate, sir. Q: Did Melencio Bali-Balita allow you to urinate? A: Yes, sir, he even ordered me to immediately come back, sir. Q: And were you able to urinate? A: Yes, sir. Q: Now did you come back to Melencio Bali-Balita after you were told by him to urinate? A: No, sir, I went back to my room, sir. Q: And who were there sleeping at that time when you went back to your room? A: My two (2) brothers , sir. Q: How about Melencio Bali-Balita, where was he at that time, if you know? A: He was there inside the room of my mother, sir. Q: After that Ms. Witness, what happened next, if any? A: He called me, sir. Q: And did you heed to the call of Melencio Bali-Balita? A: No, sir, because I told him that I was going to sleep, sir. Q: Then after that what happened next if any? A: He told me to sleep inside the room of my mother and he will transfer me from our room to my mother's room, sir. Q: Was Melencio Bali-Balita able to transfer you from your room to your mother's room? A: No, sir. Q: Now after that Madam witness, what did you do, if any? A: I did not return, sir."[6] We do not find the above testimony as inconsistent with or contradictory to the medico-legal findings. Dr. Cristina Freyra testified on re-direct examination in reply to the questions propounded by the court as follows: "COURT: So, the lacerations that you found could have been inflicted on some other time, date? A: Yes, your honor. Q: When you examined the victim, the victim was no longer a virgin as she had lacerations on the hymen? A: Yes, your honor. Q: Was there a sign of reddening or discoloration of the labia minora of the private organ? A: Labia Minora is congested and so is the fourchette portion. Q: In layman's language what do you mean? A: There is reddening of the labia minora and the abrasion which means that the superficial ephethelial layer of the skin is removed. Q: There was then discoloration? A: Yes, your honor. Q: What might have caused the discoloration or abrasion? A: The friction brought about by rubbing of a hard blunt object."[7] Although Dr. Freyra testified that the lacerations found on Ella's private part were healed lacerations, which means that they were inflicted more than seven days prior to the examination conducted, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on August 26, 1997. As correctly pointed out by the trial court hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place. The conclusion is in line with jurisprudence to the effect that complete penetration of the penis is not essential to consummate rape; what is material is that there is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight.[8] | |||||