This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing, the prosecution's evidence has clearly established beyond doubt that AAA was mentally retarded because the results of the mental and the psychological tests showed that she had a mental age equivalent to that of a six-year-and-six-month-old child. This Court has held in a long line of cases that if the mental age of a woman above twelve years is that of a child below twelve years, even if she voluntarily submitted to the bestial desires of the accused, or even absent the circumstances of force or intimidation or the fact that the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, the accused would still be liable for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The rationale, therefore, is that if sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a child below twelve years would also constitute rape.[52] | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant's desperation to save himself is highlighted by his explanation as to why his wife caused the rape charges to be filed against him. Appellant alleged that his wife was having an extramarital affair. Even if it was not necessary, Vetelina chose to present witnesses to proved that appellant's allegations were untrue. Not a few persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such alleged motives have never swayed us from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[29] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an instrument of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.[30] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the disgrace and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she was not genuinely motivated by a desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[31] | |||||
|
2003-06-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's elaborate explanation, raising the twin defenses of denial and alibi, fail to hold up against Danly's testimony. Many persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. However, such supposed motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a rape victim who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[26] It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as a battering ram to extract revenge, especially if it will subject them to disgrace and humiliation.[27] No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the stigma and trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she did not have a genuine desire to seek justice against the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[28] | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. Accused-appellant sets up the defense of denial and alibi. Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[27] Between the consistent and categorical positive identification by the victim of the accused as her assailant and the latter's bare denial, the former generally prevails.[28] Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene when the crime took place.[29] In this case, accused-appellant failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime at that time. Charina Musa, a defense witness and accused-appellant's sister, admitted that the distance between the church, where accused-appellant supposedly worked on that day, and the victim's house could be traversed in 30 minutes by foot. It is thus not unlikely for accused-appellant to have left the church, gone to the victim's house, committed the crime, and returned to the church without being noticed considering that there were many people in the church on that day, being a Sunday. | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The attempt of accused-appellant to impute ill-motive on complainant for fabricating the charge of rape against him cannot succeed. Not a few persons accused of rape have attributed the charges brought against them to resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives have not prevented the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination.[12] Given the naiveté of complainant who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, we are hard put to believe that she could have concocted a tale of pure fantasy, if only to get back at her father for not allowing her to live and study in Manila. Well-settled is the doctrine that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her alleged father, if such were not the truth, or if justice was not her sole objective. The revelation of a young girl that she was sexually abused cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction, considering her willingness to undergo a public trial and relate the details of her defilement. Normally, no woman would be willing to undergo the arduous stages and embarrassing consequences of a rape trial, if not to condemn an injustice and obtain retribution.[13] | |||||