This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-01-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Granting that Janice and appellant were sweethearts and that she voluntarily consented to have sex with him, her most natural reaction would be to conceal this fact as it would bring disgrace to her honor and reputation as well as to her family.[29] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense that Adora was the sweetheart of accused-appellant and that she always initiated the foreplay in their lovemaking could have only been concocted by a person utterly devoid of moral fiber and whose mind is saturated with lechery. As this Court had said that a father's claim that he and his daughter were living together as husband and wife is an affront to Filipino values, assault on the intelligence and offends sensibilities,[33] the same can be said of sexual relationships between in-laws. It is inconceivable that Adora with her innocence, against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality had been shown, could seduce accused-appellant who was already twenty-eight (28) years old at the time of the incident[34] and who happened to be her brother-in-law. In fact, such claims of accused-appellant on the witness stand so infuriated her that she threw her bag at him and branded him a liar.[35] His self-serving declarations cannot prevail over her positive assertions.[36] Regarding the alleged "love letter" sent by "Bing," Adora refuted it by showing samples of her handwriting found on her high school spelling booklet and test papers which were hardly similar to that on the "love letter." Thus, she convincingly denied authorship of the letter. At any rate, the burden of proof was on accused-appellant to demonstrate that the handwriting was Adora's. He did not bother to do so. Having failed in this regard, the supposed "love letter" is worthless. More importantly, his name as addressee was not even distinctly stated therein; rather, the letter was addressed, "To Love." | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as alleged by petitioner refer to minor and trivial matters which only serve to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimonies.[12] His allegation that the medico-legal finding that the straight trajectory of the bullet contradicted the testimony of Jenny Camacho that the assailant was positioned in a higher level than the victim cannot be given credence. In his cross-examination, Dr. Tabangin explained that it was possible that the entrance and exit wounds would be at the same level even if the assailant's position was higher than that of the victim because there could be diversion of the bullet upon hitting the skull which is hard.[13] | |||||