This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both should in all respects complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape will significantly disappear. Under the circumstances, the criminal liability of accused-appellant is only for forcible abduction under Art. 342 of The Revised Penal Code. The sexual abuse which accused-appellant forced upon Lenie constitutes the lewd design inherent in forcible abduction and is thus absorbed therein. The indecent molestation cannot form the other half of a complex crime[71] since the record does not show that the principal purpose of the accused was to commit any of the crimes against chastity and that her abduction would only be a necessary means to commit the same.[72] Surely it would not have been the case that accused-appellant would touch Lenie only once during her four (4)-month captivity, as she herself admitted, if his chief or primordial intention had been to lay with her. Instead, what we discern from the evidence is that the intent to seduce the girl forms part and parcel of her forcible abduction and shares equal importance with the other element of the crime which was to remove the victim from her home or from whatever familiar place she may be and to take her to some other.[73] Stated otherwise, the intention of accused-appellant as the evidence shows was not only to seduce the victim but also to separate her from her family, especially from her father Palmones, clearly tell-tale signs of forcible abduction - | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2001-02-01 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As to WILFREDO's sole defense of denial, the same is unsubstantiated. Moreover, he failed to ascribe any ill-motive why Melissande would falsely accuse him of such a serious crime. Where there is no evidence to show a doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the said testimony is trustworthy.[28] Besides, we have time and time again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the witness.[29] | |||||
|
2000-10-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| commission.[23] In the absence of compelling reasons, the factual findings of the trial court are accorded the highest respect. "Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind's eye of the judge who tries the case x x x x The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him."[24] By now, accused-appellant is already seventy-two (72) years old and suffering from an acute heart ailment that requires a heart- bypass operation. We therefore recommend that for humanitarian reasons accused-appellant, after having served a term of imprisonment consistent | |||||