This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[155] | |||||
|
2014-03-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.[28] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[18] Furthermore, it is axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.[19] Lastly, in order for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2013-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[26] We agree with the findings of the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that AAA's testimony clearly and convincingly narrated the details of how she was raped by appellant. The significant snippets of her testimony read: [PROSECUTOR MONTESA] Q You said that at that time you were sleeping, what happen[ed] next after that? A He lay beside me. Q Who lay beside you, AAA? A Jade, sir. Q And after Jade lay beside you, what happen[ed] next? A He removed my short[s]. Q And then what else did he do, if any? A He laid on top of me. Q And after he laid on top of you, what else happen[ed]? A (no answer) x x x x [COURT] Q According to you when the accused went to you he removed your shorts, is this true? A Yes, your honor. Q Now, when he was removing your shorts, did you say anything? A Yes, your honor. Q What did you tell him? A That he should not remove my shorts. x x x x Q Now, what did the accused do to his pants after he laid on top of you? A He removed also the pants. x x x x Q Now, according to you[,] Kuya Jade removed his pants and he laid on top of you, now, what did Kuya Jade do to you after he removed his pants? A "Tinusok niya ang kanyang titi sa akin." x x x x [PROSECUTOR MONTESA] Q What part of your body was the organ "tinusok"? Was it "tinusok sa private part or pepe"? A Yes, in my "pepe". Q And what else did he do after he, as you said, "tinusok" his private organ to your "pepe"? A He was kissing me. Q And after that, what happened next? A And he told me to keep quiet. Q And did you say anything to him after he told you to keep quiet? A He said I should keep silent or else he will kill my Mama.[27] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q While you and the accused were inside the house, what happened? A He undressed me. Q In what part of the house the accused undressed you? Do you have a room? A There was a room. Q Were you undressed inside the room of that house? A Yes, sir. Q How about your younger brother, where was he at that time? A My younger brother cried. Q Where was he, inside or outside the bedroom? A Outside the bedroom. Q Was the accused armed at that time he undressed you? A Yes, sir. Q What kind of instrument? A A bolo. COURT Q What did he do with that bolo? A When I was already nude, he placed the bolo beside me. Q You told the court that you were told by the accused to undress yourself. Were you able to undress yourself? A He was the one [who] undressed me. Q Did he succeed in undressing you? A Yes, sir. Q Completely? A My shorts and my panty. Q After you were undressed by him, what did the accused do? A He unzipped his pants and put out his male organ. Q Did he tell you anything when he undressed you? A Yes, your Honor. Q What did he tell you? A He told me not to reveal this matter, because if I will reveal this to anybody, he is going to kill me. [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q When the accused was already undressed and allow his penis to go out, what did he do next? A He held my breast and inserted his penis. COURT Q Can you tell us what was your position whether sitting, standing or what? A I was made to lie down. [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q You want to impress the court… the Honorable Court when the accused inserted his male organ or penis, you were lying down? A Yes, sir. COURT Q On bed or on the floor? A On the floor. Q Did you cry when the accused inserted his penis in your vagina? A Yes, sir. Q Did you tell anything to the accused before he inserted his penis in your vagina? A Yes, sir. Q What did you tell him? A I told him it is painful. COURT Q You did not resist? A I did not resist because he is very strong. Q Where was the bolo at the time? A Beside me. x x x x [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q Was it unsheathed from the scabbard? A [It] was unsheathed from the scabbard.[12] It is a settled doctrine in our jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[13] It is likewise elementary that the issue of credibility of witnesses is resolved primarily by the trial court since it is in a better position to decide the same after having heard the witnesses and observed their conduct, deportment and manner of testifying; accordingly, the findings of the trial court are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14] In other words, as we have repeatedly declared in the past, the trial judge's evaluation, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the lower courts but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[15] Unfortunately, appellant failed to discharge this burden. | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is noteworthy to mention that even if accused-appellant did not use a knife or made threats to AAA, accused-appellant would still be guilty of raping AAA, for in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.[44] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[11] Jurisprudence is likewise instructive that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[12] | |||||