This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| AAA's delay in reporting the incident to the proper authorities is also insignificant and does not negate the veracity of her charges.[64] It should be remembered that Ogarte threatened to kill her if she revealed the rapes to anyone. Moreover, her own mother told her to keep her silence when AAA told her about the rapes a month after their occurrence. This Court reiterates that: The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims."[65] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. We have held that in our jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence.[17] It deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application.[18] Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[19] In the case at bar, the trial court, which found some portions of AAA's testimony unconvincing, was nevertheless impressed by the following portion of the testimony of AAA concerning the events of June 21, 2002: FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: Now, on June 21, 2002 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, do you remember [your] whereabouts? A: I was in my bed, Ma'am. Q: What were you doing at that time? A: I was sleeping, Ma'am. Q: Who were with you, if any, at that time while you were then sleeping? A: None, Ma'am. Q: And, you were then sleeping in your resident located at Bgy. Peri, Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan, is that correct? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: This house where you were then sleeping, how many rooms [does] it have? A: There is no room, Ma'am. Q: And it is only a one (1) room house? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: There is no division whatsoever in the house? A: There is a division, Ma'am. Q: What was that division for in your house? A: It is a place where my siblings is (sic) sleeping, Ma'am. Q: That is a division from your place where you were sleeping and the siblings where they were sleeping? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: And, what was that division made of? A: It is made of wood, Ma'am. Q: The place where you were then sleeping, it has no door? A: None, Ma'am. Q: And also that place where your siblings were sleeping? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: So, you mentioned that there was an unusual incident, what was that unusual incident? COURT: What date? FISCAL DE GUZMAN: June 21, 2002, Your Honor. COURT: Okay, answer. WITNESS: A: Ginapang po ako ng lolo ko. FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: Who is this lolo you are referring to? A: Lolo Jose, Ma'am. Q: Is he also residing in that same house with you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: And, how is he related to your Lola, BBB. A: Mag-balae po. Q: When you say "Balae", what do you mean by Balae? A: My father is the son of BBB and my mother is the daughter of Jose. Q: So, for clarification, Madame Witness, you are living in the same house with the accused in this case, with your lola BBB and your siblings? A: Yes, Ma'am. x x x x Q: Now, you mentioned that "Ginapang ka ni lolo Jose," after that what happened? A: He inserted his penis to my vagina, Ma'am. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis on your vagina? A: It hurts, Ma'am. Q: What did you do? A: I was pushing him, Ma'am. Q: What happened while you were pushing him? A: He was fight (sic) back, Ma'am. Q: How was he fighting back? A: He was threatening me with a knife, Ma'am. Q: Was he telling you anything? A: Not to tell anyone, Ma'am. Q: How was he holding that knife? A: Like this, Ma'am. INTERPRETER: Witness is demonstrating through her right hand. FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: On what part of the body was the knife poked? A: On my side, Ma'am. Q: While he was inserting his penis on (sic) your vagina, where was that knife? A: He was holding the knife, Ma'am. Q: What else happen (sic) after he inserted his penis on your vagina and you try (sic) to struggle? A: He touched me, Ma'am. Q; On what part of your body? A; My breast, Ma'am. Q: What else happen (sic) after that? A: No more, Ma'am. Q: How about your lolo, what did you do after touching your breast? A: None, Ma'am. Q: Did he leave you in the house? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: He went out of the house that night? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Did you report that incident [to] anyone? A: Yes, to our pastor, Ma'am. Q: When did you report that incident? A: June, Ma'am. Q: Could you still remember how many days after that incident happened? A: I cannot remember, Ma'am. Q: Where did you report that incident to your pastora? A: At our church, Ma'am. Q: During a service? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Why did you report that incident to your pastora? A: Because I cannot bear it anymore, Ma'am. Q: Was it the first time the incident happened to you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: I am referring to the raping incident, was that the first time that the accused Jose Galvez raped you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: What did the pastora do when you reported the incident to her? A: We went to the police station, Ma'am. Q: What did you do at the police station? A: We gave our statement, Ma'am. Q: I am showing to you a Sinumpaang Salaysay, is this statement you are referring to? A: Yes, Ma'am.[20] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We share the view of the trial court although our reasoning springs from a different perspective. Dumrique claimed there was no understanding with Nacnac as to the fare. He merely assumed that Nacnac would be charging the regular fare of P3.00 per passenger,[12] implying that they readily rode in the tricycle without bothering to inquire about the fare. This claim is hard to believe. According to Cerveza, accused-appellants offered him P35.00 for their tricycle fare but he turned it down because he wanted P40.00; thereafter they flagged down the tricycle of Nacnac. The trial court assessed the testimony of Cerveza to be credible, and we find no cogent reason to believe otherwise because no material fact appears to have been overlooked nor was any palpable error committed in the process.[13] What was more in accord with the natural course of events was that accused-appellants must have also offered to pay Nacnac P35.00 but Nacnac likewise demanded P40.00. Considering that they boarded the tricycle of Nacnac they must have accepted his counter-offer. However, upon reaching their destination, Dumrique presumably reneged on their agreement and insisted instead on paying only P12.00. | |||||