This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Complementing the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not contrived or rehearsed.[9] As the Court put it in People v. Cristobal, "Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming."[10] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We explained in People v. Cristobal that "for sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman, the accused has shown moral corruption, perversity, and wickedness. He has grievously wronged the institution of marriage. The imposition then of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others from committing similar acts or for correction for the public good is warranted."[63] Notably, there were instances wherein exemplary damages were awarded despite the absence of an aggravating circumstance. As we held in People v. Dalisay: Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages. x x x | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Additionally, accused-appellant cannot plausibly bank on the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies, even if they do exist because such minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[43] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[44] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Thus, in People v. Matrimonio,[45] the Court imposed exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal,[46] the Court awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption, perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman. Recently, in People of the Philippines v. Cristino Cañada,[47] People of the Philippines v. Pepito Neverio[48] and The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,[49] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To be sure, AAA's testimony is not without discrepancies and inconsistencies, given of course her mental state. It cannot be over-emphasized, however, that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant strike this Court as trivial. Rape is a harrowing experience, the exact details of which are usually not remembered. Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[11] Trivial inconsistencies, like the matter of whether or not accused-appellant called out on AAA before he forcibly grabbed her hands, do not, to borrow from People v. Cristobal, rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[12] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Additionally, Malate was unable to prove any ill motive on the part of BBB. The fact that he testified not knowing the complainant and that he first met her when he was brought to the police station the day after the incident argues against the idea of BBB harboring ill will against him.[14] Thus, where there is no evidence to show any questionable reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against, or falsely implicate, the accused in a heinous crime, the witness' testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[15] | |||||
|
2003-10-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The trial court found Analyn's demeanor while she testified to the rape as frank, straightforward, sincere, and unshaken despite the rigid cross-examination. True, the positive testimony of a credible complainant is sufficient basis for the conviction of rape, for jurisprudence recognizes that a victim who cries rape, more so if she is a minor, almost always says all that are needed to signify that the crime has been committed.[34] It is also true that a woman would not make a charge of rape for reasons other than to seek justice for what is the truth.[35] We must consider, however, a principle equally fundamental: that evidence to be worthy of credit must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.[36] In this regard, the probability of the testimony of Analyn is suspect in light of the totality of the evidence presented for and against the appellant. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Neither can the absence of hymenal lacerations discredit Vanessa Rochelle's testimony. Although hymenal lacerations are considered to be the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of penile penetration, they are not necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to prove its consummation. Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. Thus, neither the penetration of the penis beyond the lips of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen are indispensable in proving the crime of rape.[19] And where a woman, particularly a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[20] In any event, the medical examination of the victim and the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character and are not always necessary to sustain a conviction for rape.[21] However, contrary to the claims of the defense, the medical certificate and the testimony of Dr. Orbe in fact corroborate Vanessa Rochelle's testimony that she has been raped. Dr. Orbe explained that the absence of hymenal lacerations on Vanessa Rochelle was due to the fact that the latter's hymen was so elastic that penetration, if done slowly, would not have ruptured the same. However, he testified that he found lacerations in the vagina of the victim consistent with penile invasion. Where the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22] | |||||