This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| [20] People v. Rabosa, G.R. Nos. 119362 and 120269, June 9, 1997,273 SCRA 142, 150-151. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, we find no reason to overturn the ruling of the trial court that the victim's testimony was credible. Also settled is the rule that an accused can be convicted on the strength of the lone testimony of a rape victim.[25] The clear and convincing testimony of the offended party, given ample credence by the trial court, suffices to merit a conviction in this case. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We thus see no inconsistency in the story presented by the victim. Contrary to the contentions of the defense, the alleged inconsistencies are minor; they do not affect the credibility of the victim. Indeed, they should be taken as indicia of truth rather than as badges of falsehood, for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[39] After her traumatic experience, we do not expect the victim to remember vividly the appellant's threats or each and every ugly detail of the sexual assault.[40] What is significant is that Ana Liza was clear and consistent in asserting that the appellant intimidated and raped her. On the basis of the victim's credible testimony, the conviction of appellant is inevitable. | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a frightful experience. The victim's mien, rather than composure, could mean resignation, considering her continuing suffering or apoplexy and numbness as the aftermath of her ordeal."[127] The fact, therefore, that Cherry Grace failed to run away immediately from the accused-appellant and avoid his evil clutches should not be taken against her. We thus hold that the accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome Cherry Grace's positive testimony that he raped her fourteen (14) times, which was substantially corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. "The rule is that the positive and categorical | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of medical and physical evidence, we also cannot agree with appellant's contention. For as held in previous cases decided by this Court, the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that she was not raped. Hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[18] Likewise, healed lacerations do not negate rape.[19] In this case, the medical finding that complainant had a previous laceration in her genitalia merely corroborated complainant's truthful admission that she had been sexually abused before. This fact, however, has no pertinence to the present case, except to demonstrate further the sad plight of a rape victim in our society. | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Two versions were presented on what transpired inside the office of Insp. Leyba: the victim's version that she was raped and the accused'[s] version that he merely conducted further investigation on the victim relative to the case filed against her. The [Regional Trial] Court finds the victim's testimony to be credible and relies on her credibility as against the credibility of the accused. It is inconceivable that Bing, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, would make up a story on the commission of rape against her and falsely testify against the accused whom she never knew before. The natural flow and logic in her testimony as well as her facial and emotional reactions to questions and answers during the hearing of the case strengthened the theory of the prosecution that the victim was raped. The defense is banking on the alleged lack of resistance exerted by the victim. This was amply explained by the victim when she testified that she was so scared of the accused'[s] gun and that the accused was so strong. Nonetheless, the status alone of the accused, being a policeman and custodian of the victim would be sufficient to cast fear and threat and influence on the victim.[15] When a woman testifies that she had been raped, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the appellant may be convicted on the basis of the woman's testimony alone.[16] In this case, the defense asked the victim minute details of the rape incident, and tried to make the court believe that her inconsistency on minor details was sufficient to acquit appellant on grounds of reasonable doubt. However, a rape victim is not expected to remember every ugly detail of her ordeal. A rape victim might even unconsciously block out certain details of her humiliation and debasement.[17] The victim cried on the witness stand when she was made to recall the horrifying details of her ordeal. As borne by human nature and experience[18] such reaction is a badge of honesty, showing that she is being candid, sincere, and truthful in her testimony. The victim here testified, in this wise: Atty. Nazal (defense counsel): So the accused asked you to stand up, is that right? | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The complainant indeed may have failed to escape at the earliest opportunity, and even stayed with the accused after thrice suffering her nightmares, but different people react differently to different situations, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a frightful experience. The victim's mien, rather than composure, could mean resignation, considering her continuing suffering, or apoplexy and numbness as the aftermath of her ordeal.[49] Thus, the fact that complainant failed to run away immediately from the accused and avoid his clutches should not be taken against her. | |||||
|
2000-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We also note that the records show that private complainant cried during her direct examination. The cry of the victim during her testimony bolster the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[15] Although there are some inconsistencies in private complainant's testimony, they are minor. They do not affect the credibility of the victim. On the contrary, they should be taken as indicia of truth rather than badges of falsehood for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. After her traumatic experience, we do not expect private complainant to remember every ugly detail of the sexual assault.[16] What is significant is that she was clear and consistent in asserting that appellant had threatened and raped her. Thus, we see no reason to doubt private complainant's story. There is nothing to show that private complainant was actuated by ill motive to implicate appellant in the commission of the crime. The logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony of private complainant is worthy of full faith and credit. | |||||