This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The petitioner's plea of self-defense contradicts common knowledge and experience. No better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness' testimony than its conformity to the knowledge of mankind.[13] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as being constitutive of the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense is committed.[6] The appellate court is correct in holding that the exact date of the commission of the offense of rape is not an element of the crime.[7] Neither would such impreciseness operate to discredit the vivid account of the 11-year old victim. Most importantly, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound determination by the trial court, whose findings thereon deserve weight and respect.[8] | |||||
|
2001-09-25 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We sustain the ruling of the trial court. In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound determination of the trial court the conclusion of which deserves much weight and respect.[9] Moreover, courts usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault. Normally, no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice and punish the perpetrator.[10] Karen narrated the incidents of her sexual abuse in a clear, positive and straightforward manner. Thus - | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's theory that he and the victim were sweethearts is unavailing and self-serving since he failed to prove the same. He did not present any evidence of such relationship, e.g., love letters, gifts, and the like, or any witness to attest to his alleged amorous affair with her.[16] The testimony of Danilo Dagpin achieved nothing for the defense as he merely based his statement on the alleged circumstance that he occasionally saw them together.[17] A man and a woman occasionally seen walking together, by itself, is not indicative of a love relationship. If such circumstance may be considered at all to support the sweetheart theory, it should be coupled with gestures displaying affection peculiar only to lovers. Moreover, accused-appellant's alleged reaction when his intimate relationship with Ellen was discovered by Danilo does not inspire belief. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect[14] because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not.[15] Trial courts assess the credibility of witnesses on two (2) aspects: demeanor of witnesses as they deliver their testimonies and contents of their testimonies. As to the first, appellate courts generally yield to the trial court's conclusion because, as aforementioned, it had the advantage of observing first hand the witnesses' deportment on the stand then assess their performance accordingly. As to the second, appellate courts make their own independent evaluation, based on the transcript of stenographic notes, to be tested against human nature and ordinary habits of life and to be scrutinized for consistency, among other criteria. The result of the evaluation may render illusory the trial court's conclusion on the first aspect or it may not. Having discharged such duty, no reason compels us to substitute a finding different from that of the trial court. The qualities of being categorical, candid and spontaneous are discernible from each and every page of the transcript of stenographic notes containing Adora's testimonies both on direct and cross examinations. We note that she was subjected to rigid and lengthy cross examination on the same day her direct examination was concluded. She remained unshaken.[16] | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The assertion of the accused that Marita was no longer a virgin when she was raped will not exculpate him from criminal liability. The records show that Marita was sexually abused twice. After inserting his fingers, the accused inserted his organ into her private part, and after awhile, accused repeated the sexual abuse. Clearly, when Marita was raped for the second time, she was no longer a virgin; she could have already lost her virginity during the first rape. Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape.[14] It should be emphasized however that since the Information charged only one offense, even if the evidence showed a second act of forcible intercourse, conviction for one rape was proper.[15] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial court considered as proof that there was no planned elopement the circumstance that accused-appellant had allowed Rowena to go home by herself and just waited for her to return and that after hearing Rowena's mother scolding her he left instead of waiting around for a chance to at least talk with Rowena. We do not share the view of the trial court. We believe instead that his departure meant that he accepted the fact that their plan to elope had been thwarted. And while he might have failed to introduce proofs of his "sweetheart theory" such as love letters, gifts and the like,[19] other than the testimony of his sister which we find to be biased per se, we find these no longer pertinent. The unwitting disclosure of Rowena herself that she was ordered by accused-appellant to return with her jewelry and clothes was already an adequate indication that the two (2) intended to run away. | |||||