This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-08-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the assigned errors in this petition, we find the inconsistencies imputed by the accused on the testimonies of Cornelia and Remedios to be no more than imagined. Both mother and daughter gave clear and credible testimonies as reflected on the records of this case. The argument on the accused's being so advanced in age as to render it doubtful for him to have committed the rape is belied by his having been caught in flagrante delicto; this Court has also held in several instances that advanced age is not known to render sexual intercourse impossible nor to deter sexual interest and capability.[12] As for accused's non-flight and lack of resistance to his arrest, we have intermittently held that unlike flight of an accused which may be indicative of guilt, non-flight is not a conclusive gauge of innocence --- it is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors.[13] | |||||
|
2001-06-26 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| A gratuitous disclaimer by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive identification of the offended party, more so if the alibi is corroborated only by the accused's relatives and friends.[28] Accused-appellant argues that the Fariolan spouses, as the employers of both the offended party and accused-appellant, were not only unbiased witnesses but even shared with the offended party an interest in having the perpetrator brought to ,justice as the rape was also effectively a desecration of their home. This argument is unacceptable, however, in light of the spouses' active involvement in persuading Nancy to accept accused-appellant's offer of marriage. It is certainly revealing of which employee they favor, and where their biases lie. | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.[14] In the instant case, we find the alleged inconsistencies relied upon by appellant in his bid for acquittal, immaterial and irrelevant. The linchpin of complainant's testimony is that appellant raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellant makes much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Thus, whether she was asleep when appellant approached her or awake when appellant called her, prior to the ravishment, are trivial details. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[15] Moreover, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes or variations in their declarations, considering the treachery of human memory. Here, we find that an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded the 12-year old rape victim. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience.[16] Thus, far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[17] | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Asserting that he was already 63 years old when the rape incidents occurred, appellant suggests that his advanced age had made him impotent. This Court, however, had already convicted a 70-year old man for twice raping the 16-year old complainant.[23] Recently, it also convicted a 69-year-old man, who was suffering from a coronary artery disease, for raping a healthy 29-year-old.[24] | |||||