This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-03-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| ATTY. RONALD ANCHETA Q: Doctor, in your findings, you said that you found out that the hymen was lacerated at 4 and 9 o'clock positions. DR. FREYRA A: Yes, sir. Q: Doctor, what could have been the cause of the laceration? A: The cause of such laceration is the insertion of any blunt object inside the vagina. Q: Now doctor, would you be able to distinguish if only the tip of the penis or full or the whole penis was inserted. Would you determine that considering that the laceration is [at] 4 and 9 o'clock positions? A: The laceration is inflicted in the hymen if there was insertion of any hard blunt object and the size of the laceration would depend on the object that penetrated and it does not matter whether the tip of the penis is short or inverted. Q: Are you saying that even the tip of the penis could have caused the laceration at 4 and 9 o'clock? A: As I have said, it would depend on the diameter of the thing that enters the hymen and it would break that would need to accommodate the diameter of the thing that enters [sic]. Q: So how about in this case, Doctor, if the male factor is an adult at the time of the sexual abuse and there was full penetration. Is it not a fact that there could have been more laceration than what has been stated there in your report? A: No, sir because the hymen is elastic and it would break and produce lacerations that are made in order to accommodate the diameter of the thing that enters and since the thing that penetrated only required two lacerations located at 4 and 9 o'clock, those were the only lacerations inflicted in order to accommodate the thing that entered. Q: How about if the finger was inserted in the hymen of the victim, would it produce that type of lacerations? A: If it was a finger that penetrated the hymen, perhaps I would see a smaller laceration in the hymen. Then also it would depend on the size of the smaller finger that entered the hymen and did not do any other movements like sideward movement it would be a shallow laceration. But in this case, it is a deep healed laceration of the hymen. x x x[25] [Emphasis ours] Second, the appellant employed force and intimidation in satisfying his lustful desires. AAA categorically stated that she was dragged by the appellant - who was wielding a knife - inside his (appellant's) house. AAA likewise testified that the appellant continued to threaten her while they were inside his house; and that she (AAA) did not attempt to run for fear for her life. As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind.[26] In People v. Mateo,[27] we held:It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law in the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We reiterate the doctrine that the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. [20] As a rule, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some weighty and substantial facts or circumstances that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence. [21] Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings. [22] Moreover, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the trial court's findings carry even more weight. In the appeal before us, we find no reason to deviate from the rule. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[21] Hence, this appeal, on the lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING MATERIAL FACTS OF IMPORTANCE WHICH IF CONSIDERED AND GIVEN PROBATIVE VALUE, WOULD HAVE TILTED THE SCALES OF JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF AN ACQUITTAL.[22] While not unmindful of the constitutional presumption of innocence, and firmly aware that the accused's failure to take the witness stand is not to be taken against him, we consider that the prosecution has amply discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the accused. Not one scintilla of evidence was presented by the appellant to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. It is a well-settled rule that the trial court's assessment of witnesses' credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[23] Appellate courts generally accord credence to the factual findings of the trial court, for the latter was in the best position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.[24] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Lucita testified that she did not confront accused-appellant at once out of fear considering that he was the chairman of the Civilian Volunteers Organization (CVO) in their barangay. But, shortly afterward, accused-appellant came to wash the motorcycle which he operated for hire in a water faucet near her house. Upon seeing her, Lucita claimed, accused-appellant was surprised and hurriedly left without cleaning his motorcycle. As her suspicion was confirmed, Lucita took Lorlyn to the Bukidnon Provincial Hospital in Malaybalay on March 23, 1998 for an examination. The following day, she and her daughters, Lorlyn and Honeybee, executed affidavits in Camp Onahon, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, on the basis of which a complaint for rape against accused-appellant was filed on March 30, 1998.[10] Lucita said the affidavits were executed in Camp Onahon in Malaybalay City rather than in San Fernando because accused-appellant had friends in the police force.[11] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Six members of the Court are of the view that the act committed by accused-appellant was attempted rape, not consummated rape. They hold that there was no evidence of sexual congress however slight. The victim, Melinda, testified that her father inserted his penis into her vagina "a little" causing pain. He made a push and pull movement while mounted on top of her for a few minutes (2-3 minutes) until a white substance came out of his organ. This fact shows that there was no penetration of penis into the female sex organ even slightly. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido, Medico-Legal Officer, NBI, declared when asked if it was possible that there was penetration of the victim's vagina that "it is difficult to prove that there was penetration because the hymen was intact." He admitted, though, that it was possible the penis touched the vagina. Touching by the penis of the opening of the vagina is not consummated rape, only attempted rape.[43] There is no physical evidence showing that the accused's penis touched the pudendum.[44] True, entry of the penis into the lips of the said organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen is enough.[45] In this case, however, the doctor testified that "penetration" was impossible because the orifice is small. In People vs. Bation,[46] the court held that it is essential that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. There must be entry of the penis into the labia majora of the female victim, however slightly[47] or there is entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ.[48] Although the rule is that when the victim cries rape, she says all constituting the commission of the offense. However, case law requires that the victim's testimony must find support in the physical evidence. In this case, six members of the Court find that the physical evidence does not support the victim's testimony. | |||||
|
2001-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The "scorned woman theory" of appellant, i.e., his contention that the charge of rape was brought about as an act of spite and vengeance on the part of Cecilia because of his refusal to give in her to sexual desires, hardly inspires belief. If it were true that Cecilia entertained secret desires for appellant, she would not leave at all of a sudden. Her tendency would have been to keep close to the man she was secretly in love with. She would not fabricate a charge of rape for this would only expose her supposedly "secret love" and thwart her hidden designs. In other words, appellant's attempt to find solace in the literary aphorism, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" has no basis in either the facts of this case or the law applicable. It is not a credible motivation for Cecilia to humiliate and expose herself to public scrutiny, even ridicule, in the course of a public trial. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[25] | |||||