This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-06-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA recognized the credibility and believability of AAA's testimony. They both gave credence to the testimony of AAA who narrated her ordeal in a straightforward, convincing, and consistent manner, interrupted only by her convulsive sobbing. We cannot but do the same, considering that both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony credible and believable. Indeed, AAA's brother Santiago testified that his father could have not raped her because he would have heard it. Moreover, Santiago did not categorically say that no rape happened. Rather, he only claimed that since he was at the other room he could have heard whatever happened at the other room where the rape occurred. Not because Santiago did not hear anything and the victim did not shout, no rape has ever happened. As correctly pointed out by the RTC, defense witness Santiago's testimony deserves scant consideration because negative evidence cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the private complainant. An evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence.[12] In this case, what Santiago declared in the RTC is that he did not hear anything, but such testimony does not negate the positive assertion of AAA that she was raped. Thus, "[b]etween the positive assertions of the [victim] and the negative averments of the [appellant], the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[13] Furthermore, we agree with both the RTC and the CA that lust is no respecter of time and precinct and known to happen in most unlikely places. Indeed, rape can either happen in populated area or in the privacy of a room. | |||||