This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is highly improbable that BBB would allow her granddaughter to be exposed to the ridicule of a public trial, if the charges were not true. We note that AAA has been in the custody of BBB since she was an infant, and who treated her as if she were her own daughter. It was thus very unlikely that she would sacrifice her own granddaughter, a child of tender years, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape, if she were not motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter's transgressor punished accordingly. [31] | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To be sure, several acts of accused-appellant would betray his criminal intentions. For one he offered in evidence, partly through Exh. "2" and to a degree by his testimony, the settlement which he together with Datu Salimbag Paguyan tried to broker with the family of Lenie to suppress the criminal act he had done. The putative agreement was for the accused to deliver a horse to Lenie's father to settle the matter amicably but the agreement did not push through. Since this offer of compromise was sponsored by accused-appellant himself, it clearly amounts to an implied admission of guilt which remains uncontested.[56] Moreover, if he were truly engaged to marry the victim he would not have eluded arrest for one (1) year and dodged several warrants for his arrest. The flight of accused-appellant indubitably proves an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he had no tenable defense to the crime charged. [57] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Analyn' s testimony did occasionally reflect inconsistencies. During re-direct, she stated that she was sure it was appellant's penis that penetrated her although she admits not actually seeing the penis itself.[28] This minor variance, however, is in our view, insignificant and does not weaken her testimony that she was raped by appellant. Error-free testimony cannot be expected, most especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience, one which even an adult would like to bury in oblivion.[29] Even if her testimony is not impeccable, the minor inconsistencies therein serve to reinforce rather than weaken her credibility. They are but minor lapses of a 5-year old child, who was traumatized by the bestial act done on her innocent person by appellant.[30] | |||||