This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-01-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q: When you brought Joyce Ann to him, what did you do? A: He ran away with my sister Joyce Ann, sir."[25] We thus find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the child witness, Roxanne. The determination of the competence and credibility of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge as he had the opportunity to see the demeanor of the witness, his apparent intelligence or lack of it, and his understanding of the nature of the oath. As many of these qualities cannot be conveyed by the record of the case, the trial judge's evaluation will not be disturbed on review, unless it is clear from the record that his judgment is erroneous.[26] | |||||
|
2000-12-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Moreover, it is long settled by jurisprudence that the determination of the competence and credibility of a child to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees the witness, notices her manner, her apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as well as her understanding of the obligation of an oath.[22] The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[23] The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[24] In the present case, we find no cogent basis to disturb the trial court's finding disregarding the testimonies of the defense witnesses and upholding the credibility of the complainants AAA and BBB who stood firm on their assertions and remained unfaltering in their testimony on the unfortunate incidents. | |||||
|
2000-08-03 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[11] Further, her inability to account for the precise time the rape occurred cannot be taken against her inasmuch as before the rape, she had just been awakened by the accused-appellant and could have been disoriented.[12] Second, it is well established in this jurisdiction that determination of the competence and credibility of a child to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath.[13] The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[14] The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[15] In the present case, we find no cogent and legal basis to disturb the trial court's finding disregarding the testimonies of the defense witnesses and upholding the credibility of the complainant MARISSA who, despite undergoing a rigorous cross-examination from an antagonistic counsel, withstood a barrage of questions, stood firm on her assertions and remained unfaltering in her testimony on the unfortunate incident. The fact that MARISSA did not shout although she was not prevented from shouting when she was allegedly raped is understandable. The failure of a victim to physically resist does not negate rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil liability, in line with current rulings, if in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim should be in the amount of P75,000.00; if the death penalty is not decreed by the court, the victim would instead be entitled to P50,000.00.[57] An additional award of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases, separate and distinct from the indemnity.[58] | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We take note of the fact that the victim in this case is a child. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.[11] To LEONILA's credit, she was forthright and consistent in describing how SALVADOR raped her, as can be seen from the following: "Q: Do you recall anything that happened that night? A: He was then at the sala and smoking a cigarette while we were on the bedroom and already lying down. During the night he took off is pants and went on top of me. Q: Where did Salvador take off his clothes, in the sala or in your room? A: At the sala, mam. Q: Where were you sleeping that night? A: On the floor, mam. Q: Where is the floor located in the bedroom or in the sala? A: In the bedroom. Q: Who were with you who were sleeping with you in the bedroom? A: Marvie, Lotis and Edmar. Q: You mentioned earlier that Salvador took off his clothes and then what did he do afterwards? A: He took off his clothes but I was then sleeping and he went near me and got my hands and pinned them down and he went on top of me and then he (witness demonstrating pumping motion). Q: Did he take off his clothes that night? A: Shorts and panty. Q: Did he take off your shorts and panty before he went on top of you? A: Yes, mam. Q: When you mentioned that he placed himself on top of you and pinned your arms. Did he insert his organ in your sex organ? A: Yes, mam. Q: What did you do feel when he inserted his organ to your sex organ? A: It hurt and I cried and cried. Q: How long did he insert his organ to your sex organ? A: For a long time, mam. Q: What did you do? A: I cried and cried. Q: Did anyone of your brothers and sisters wake up due to your crying? A: There was, mam, my younger sister. Q: What is the name of your younger brother or sister who woke up? A: Edmar, mam. Q: Did you notice anyone of your brothers and sisters who also woke up that night? A: Yes, mam. Q: Who else woke up that night? A: He was the only one. Q: How long did he insert his organ to your sex organ? A: For a long time. Q: What did he do afterwards? A: After that he left. Q: And then what happened afterwards? A: He went to lay down in the sala and went to sleep. Q: Do you recall anything else that happened that night? A: There was at around 12:00 o'clock. Q: What happened at around 12:00 o'clock that night? A: He went back to me. Q: What did Salvador do to you? A: He again went on top of me. Q: Did he take off his clothes? A: He took off his shirt, but he did not take off his pants. Q: When he was on top of you at around 12:00 o'clock, did he take off his short? A: Yes, mam. Q: Did he take off your shorts or panty at around 11:00 o'clock? A: Yes, mam. Q: Did he insert his organ to your sex organ at around 11:00 o'clock? A: Yes, mam. Q: How long did he insert his organ to your sex organ? A: For a long time, mam. Q: What did you do? A: I cried and cried. Q: Did Salvador threaten you? A: Yes, mam. Q: What did Salvador tell you? A: That he was going to kill us whenever we reported.[12] SALVADOR's defense that the only unusual thing that happened on the night of the rape was his accidental touching of LEONILA's breast cannot override LEONILA's positive assertion that SALVADOR defiled her. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credence.[13] It is an established rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[14] Thus, SALVADOR's defense of denial cannot prevail over the unwavering and consistent testimony of LEONILA. | |||||