This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-04-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In deciding rape cases, this Court is well aware of its duty to both the victim and the accused. Bearing in mind that the conviction of the accused depends heavily on the credibility of the victim, courts are mandated to thoroughly examine the testimony of the offended party. [12] Although the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, courts are duty-bound to establish that their reliance on the victim's testimony is justified. Courts are mandated to ensure that the testimony is credible, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. [13] If the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, an error-free testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim, for she may not be able to remember and recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and the appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too traumatic and painful to remember.[13] Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the presence of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[14] | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir. PROS. MANAOIS: May we place on record that the witness is now shedding tears.[18] (Emphasis supplied.) From her testimony, it is clear that what was meant by "abused" is the pattern of unconsented sexual abuses against the victim by appellant. It is established jurisprudence that testimony must be considered and calibrated in its entirety inclusive and not by truncated or isolated passages thereof.[19] Due consideration must be accorded to all the questions propounded to the witness and her answers thereto. The whole impression or effect of what had been said or done must be considered and not individual words or phrases alone. Moreover, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.[20] Just as well-settled is the rule that what is important is the victim's testimony that the accused sexually abused her.[21] Significantly, the victim shed tears while testifying on her third complaint against her own father.[22] The crying of a victim on the witness stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her sordid experience.[23] Given the proof of two prior abuses against her, there is reason to hold in this instance that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,[24] for a daughter especially of tender age would not accuse her own father of such a heinous crime as rape had she really not been aggrieved.[25] | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Family relations are not easily compromised with the stepfather at risk of being imprisoned or put to death for trite and flimsy reasons, such as those alleged by accused-appellant.[14] However, the trial court erred in imposing upon accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death. To warrant the death penalty, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be both alleged and proved.[15] | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As already shown, the circumstances of minority of the victim and relationship between her and accused-appellant are present in this case. Under R.A. No. 7659, the concurrence of these circumstances, if alleged in the information, would constitute a special aggravating circumstance. However, as the rapes in these cases were committed before R.A. No. 7659 took effect on December 31, 1993, these circumstances cannot be appreciated for the purpose of imposing the penalty of death under R.A. No. 7659. The paternal relationship, however, can be considered a generic aggravating circumstance[30] for the purpose of awarding exemplary damages under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code.[31] The penalty in the two cases remains reclusion perpetua as it is an indivisible penalty. The Revised Penal Code provides in pertinent part:Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. | |||||