Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
Anent the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of AAA with respect to the reason why she ran away from their house after the last incident of rape, suffice it to state that the same is not fatal to the prosecution's cause. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected.[20] It bears stressing that the inconsistency mentioned by Biala pertained to a trivial and non-consequential matter that was merely caused by the confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency regarding her reason for leaving their house was not even a matter relating to her ordeal. Besides, the human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions that accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[21]
	GR No. 208173 2014-06-11	PEOPLE v. OLIVER A. BUCLAO LEONEN, J.
This court has held before that "mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[64] It is settled that the defense of alibi and denial cannot overcome the victim's positive and categorical testimony and identification of the accused-appellant.[65] Presence of other family members is not a valid defense in rape cases since rape may be carried out in the same room where the family members are staying.[66]
	GR No. 202122 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected.[22] As this Court stated in People v. Saludo[23]: Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 189324 2013-03-20	PEOPLE v. GILBERT PENILLA Y FRANCIA PEREZ, J.
We adhere to the well-entrenched doctrine that the matter of evaluating the credibility of witnesses depends largely on the assessment of the trial court. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[23] Thus, appellate courts rely heavily on the weight given by the trial court on the credibility of a witness as it had a first-hand opportunity to hear and see the witness testify.[24]
	GR No. 188849 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN 'UTO' VELOSO Y RAMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In any event, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA do not detract from her credibility as a witness. Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.[31]
	GR No. 187732 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. FELIX MORANTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Alleged inconsistencies do not detract from AAA's credibility as a witness. A rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.[29]
	GR No. 194581 2012-07-02	PEOPLE v. DANILO MIRASOL AGUSTIN REYES, J.
Offhand, like the CA, we resolve this case guided by these time-tested principles in deciding rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[26]
	GR No. 193665 2012-06-25	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOSI Y DANAO REYES, J.
In deciding this case, we are guided by the three principles which courts should take into account when reviewing rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[10] Because of these guiding principles, we are confronted with one core issue: the credibility of the victim.