This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-04-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, a rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.[15] Earlier and long-standing decisions of this Court have likewise held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. This is true when made against any man committing the crime; it is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative.[16] | |||||
|
2000-03-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As we have held time and again, the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserves full credence,[26] specially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant.[27] In this case, accused-appellant offered no evidence to show that Maricon was impelled by any ulterior motive to fabricate a story of defloration against him. The fact that Maricon failed to immediately inform any member of her family about the two rape incidents was understandable considering the threats made by accused-appellant.[28] | |||||
|
2000-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On the other hand, accused-appellant's assertion that he merely put his finger into the victim's vagina is incredible and contrary to the evidence. If this was all that he did, why did he have to pull down the zipper of his pants, put his penis out, lay himself on top of her, put his organ into hers, move it in and out of her organ, meaning doing a push and pull movement? And while he was doing this, Crisselle said she felt pain. On top of this, the medical examination conducted on her showed a lacerated wound in her organ positioned at 3 o' clock. If Crisselle's story was the product of her imagination, as the accused-appellant would like this Court to believe, she would have painted for the court a more dastardly and gruesome picture of her ordeal. But true to her innocence and coyness, being only six years old, the words she used on cross-examination were mild. She mentioned that his penis did not penetrate her vagina[42] but that it only touched its "hole,"[43] that the attempt of the accused-appellant to satisfy his lust for flesh was only for a short period,[44] that nothing happened to her vagina after the accused-appellant tried to insert his penis with an "in and out" motion,[45] and that she did not actually see the penis of the accused-appellant enter her vagina.[46] These are telltale signs of the victim's honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience at the hands of accused-appellant. It has been stressed often enough that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence.[47] | |||||