This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The prosecution must prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant; and, (2) that the same was accomplished under any of the above-enumerated circumstances. Inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testily with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse.[39] Therefore, in a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with. Thus, if the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis of this testimony; otherwise, the accused should be acquitted of the crime.[40] | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellant's assertion that MMM and OOO's testimonies lacked probative value as they did not witness the actual rape is bereft of merit. It must be stressed that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation, thus, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse.[148] Hence, the probative value of MMM and OOO's testimonies rest not on whether they actually witnessed the rape but on whether their declarations were in harmony with KKK's narration of the circumstances, preceding, subsequent to and concurrent with, the rape incidents. | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually the victim alone who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse.[16] Therefore, in a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important point to consider. Thus, if the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis of this testimony; otherwise, the accused should be acquitted of the crime.[17] | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. "The 'sweetheart theory' hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any evidence, such as love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show that, indeed, he and the victim were sweethearts."[43] Appellant's bare testimony that he and "AAA" are lovers who agreed to get married is insufficient for the defense of "sweetheart theory" to prosper. Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, mere assertion of a romantic relationship would not necessarily exclude the use of force or intimidation in sexual intercourse. In People v. Cias,[44] this Court held that "[a] love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will." | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As to the inconsistencies in Elena's testimony and in her affidavit as to who asked her father the identity of the assailants, the same deserves scant consideration. It is settled that "affidavits or statements taken ex parte are generally considered incomplete and inaccurate. Thus, by nature, they are inferior to testimony given in court, and whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight."[46] The trial court therefore did not err in affording more credence to Elena's testimony given in open court despite her having previously executed an affidavit which was inconsistent with her testimony. To stress, "appellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regard to the assessment of credibility of witnesses. The reason for this is that trial courts have the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination."[47] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The exceptions to this rule are when the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when certain facts of substance and value, likely to change the outcome of the case, have been overlooked by the trial court, or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.[14] | |||||