This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Dion had failed to impeach the credible and straightforward testimony of AAA. Well-settled is the doctrine that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she had been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed. [57] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Against all this evidence, accused-appellant's alibi cannot stand. In order for alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must prove two things: first, that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and second, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.[46] Physical impossibility is defined as "the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[47] Alibi fails "where, owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access between the two places involved, there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene."[48] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In People v. Villamala,[30] the Court found the husband and wife guilty for raping their neighbor and "kumare" in this factual setting, viz: the wife visited the victim at her home on the pretext of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. Once inside, she whistled for her husband and he immediately appeared at the doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned her "kumare" to the floor. The husband forcefully removed the victim's skirt and panties, removed his shorts, placed himself on top of the victim and consummated the rape. In the more recent People v. Saba,[31] the accused married couple victimized a fourteen (14) year-old epileptic who stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a reputed healer. On the pretext of conducting a healing session, the wife ordered the victim to lie down on the floor then pinned the victim's hands to the floor and covered her mouth while her husband removed his pants and briefs and the victim's panties and raped the young girl. These two cases show not only the possibility but the reality of rape committed by a woman together with a man. | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We thus affirm the findings of the trial court on the credibility of Delia's narration of her defilement not only because of the settled rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect on appeal because it had the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and deportment while testifying, but more so because it is unnatural and highly improbable that a young girl would come out with such serious accusation, risking not only her honor and reputation but her family's as well.[17] Delia was only nine (9) years old when she was raped. At such tender age, she could not be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault that accused-appellant unconscionably perpetrated on her.[18] The revelation of an innocent child, like Delia, whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[19] Thus, testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age demand full credence.[20] "Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[21] And the credibility of a rape victim is augmented when, as in this case, she has no malevolent motive to testify against the accused-appellant or where there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by such motive.[22] | |||||