This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It needs no elaboration that in criminal litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[66] "[T]he burden of proof rests on the [S]tate. The accused, if he so chooses, need not present evidence. He merely has to raise a reasonable doubt and whittle away from the case of the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence demands no less,"[67] even as it also demands no less than a moral certainty of his guilt.[68] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The idea of the rape victim going to a birthday party the house of her boyfriend - who had watched her (AAA) being ravaged - a day after she was raped baffles us no end; the party was at house of one who participated in and who was initially accused of the rap and ordinarily was an occasion an aggrieved rape victim would not attend. Her attendance in our view, was a conduct, done immediately after the rape, that is directly inconsistent with the natural reaction of an outraged woman who had been robbed of her honor.[56] Time and again, this Court has emphasized that a woman's conduct immediately after an alleged sexual assault is critically important in gauging the truth of her accusations. The conduct must coincide with logic and experience, taking into account the experience she just went through. While it may be true that AAA cannot be expected to act in any particular manner and that people may react differently to a given situation, still, this Court finds it hard to believe that she would act as if nothing untoward happened so soon after an allegedly harrowing incident.[57] | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Consider this: In the first rape case, MMM herself was an eyewitness to an act of raping her minor daughter XXX who was then only seven (7) years old. Neither MMM nor the prosecution made any attempt to refute or at least explain why MMM was willing to cause the dismissal of a rape case for the paltry sum of three thousand pesos only. In contrast thereto, in the present case, even when relying on the prosecution's version of the facts, none of the acts in question took place within the plain view of any independent eyewitness. This brings to mind what the Court has earlier said on the matter of credibility: Complainant's credibility having been put in serious doubt, the rule that "the judgment of the trial court in passing on the credibility of the witness will not be interfered with by the appellate court" does not apply in this case.[23] Given the above, we find it difficult to accept the RTC's depiction of MMM as a "loving mother" as written in its decision, viz: It is highly inconceivable that a loving mother of a young girl as in the instant case would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her daughter's private parts and thereafter, pervert her by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by her desire to obtain justice, nay revenge, for the heinous act committed against her child. xxx xxx xxx.[24] Then, too, the language of the above quotation is quite too trite and over familiar to us since numerous rape case decisions repeat and rehash the same mantra. The problem with copying word-for-word from the obiter dictum of jurisprudence is that some of the words therein are no longer applicable to the present case. One glaring example is the misuse in the trial court's decision of the word "defloration" because, according to the prosecution's own evidence (the Medico-Legal Report),[25] there was no defloration in the present case. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| This case is an exception. The test for determining the credibility of a witness' testimony is whether the testimony is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind and that whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[20] We find that Irene's testimony failed to pass that test. | |||||
|
2003-10-16 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As we expressed at the outset, this case calls for the application of the guiding principles in reviewing rape cases. These are (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but is difficult to prove and even more difficult for the accused to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[18] | |||||