This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court is called upon to review the verdict of conviction below, keeping in mind the following principles as guidance: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, albeit innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must succeed or fail on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[30] | |||||
|
2014-06-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Supreme Court as the court of last resort is obligated to conduct a comprehensive and extensive assessment of a conviction for rape,[22] and in the Court's review of the decisions of the RTC and the CA, the Court has followed the oft-cited guiding principles, to wit: A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the accused and the complainant, so that utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape. Thus, the Court has consistently adhered to the following guiding principles, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, albeit innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must succeed or fail on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to the above principle is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in the prosecution of a rape case.[23] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely.[154] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, AAA's delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges. It should be remembered that Pareja threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incidents. In People v. Ogarte,[40] we explained why a rape victim's deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the accusation, to wit: The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that "the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to the highest respect absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case."[19] In the Court's assessment of the records, there is no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, accused-appellant's defenses, consisting of mere denial and alibi, fail to persuade us. As we explained in People v. Ogarte[30]: This Court has uniformly held, time and again, that both "denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution." It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The CA further ratiocinated that the variance in the two crimes is not fatal to Pielago's conviction. Indeed, in order to obtain a conviction for rape by sexual assault, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the elements that constitute such crime. Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provides that the gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault which is the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice. In the instant case, this element is clearly present when AAA straightforwardly testified in court that Pielago inserted his forefinger in her vagina and anus. Jurisprudence has it that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[30] Thus, AAA's unrelenting narration of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification of Pielago as the malefactor, established the case for the prosecution. | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Inasmuch as only two persons are usually involved in rape cases, the settled rule is that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, so long as the testimony is clear, positive, and probable, may prove the crime as charged.[13] | |||||