This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete; mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.[38] Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that AAA's impaired learning capacity, lack of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering simple questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance Psychologist who had an opportunity to observe her appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are indicative that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental retardation. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Complainant was mentally ill at the time of the incident, and consequently could not be expected to remember in precise detail all that actually happened to her. Her severe traumatic experience was too much for her unstable mental faculties... Her testimony as to what had happened certainly cannot constitute gospel truth... We have said that a rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. And the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. On the contrary, it is a recognized axiom in rape cases that inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not detract from the vital fact that, in truth, she had been abused. Testimonial discrepancies could have been caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, which variances tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[13] | |||||