This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the accused and the complainant, so that utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape. Thus, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, albeit innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must succeed or fail on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to the above principle is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in the prosecution of a rape case.[23] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the only supporting evidence that appellant has presented to back up his assertion that no rape took place during the time he spent with AAA inside the unlit classroom was the unreliable testimony of Rodel Benito. The testimony of said witness cannot be taken as credible because Benito is a close friend and drinking buddy of appellant and jurisprudence instructs us that testimonies of close relatives and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the unequivocal declaration of a complaining witness.[27] Contrary to Benito's statement that he was alert and awake during the entire period in which appellant and AAA were together, AAA emphatically testified that Benito was drunk and asleep the whole time.[28] | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court, in its own assessment of the case, casts no doubt on AAA's credibility and to the truthfulness of her testimony, as opposed to Rivera's weak reliance on the "sweetheart theory." Not even an iota of ill motive to file such a malicious case for rape on the part of AAA was shown by Rivera to at least discredit her claim that the act was not consensual. As held in People v. Cabanilla,[31] the sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof. As correctly ruled by the CA, such defense is "effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on accused-appellant the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence."[32] Independent proof is required. | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Further, the theory that Cias and AAA were having an illicit affair is unsupported by evidence. As held in People v. Cabanilla,[36] the sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof. In the case at bar, accused-appellant relied solely on his testimony and that of his wife. He did not offer any other evidence--such as a love letter, a memento, or even a single photograph--to substantiate his claim that they had a romantic relationship. | |||||