This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The appellant in this case considered his failure to give money to AAA as the latter's motive for charging him with the crime of rape; such allegation, however, remained unsubstantiated; therefore, it is self-serving. It is an accepted doctrine that in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the victim to falsely testify against the accused, her testimony deserves credence.[46] Thus, the aforesaid allegation of the appellant cannot even shed any cloud of doubt on the credibility of the victim's testimony. Further, during AAA's testimony before the court a quo, there were instances when AAA cried[47] while narrating and testifying in court about her horrible experience in the hands of the appellant. The fact that the victim cried during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge[48] for the display of such emotion indicates the pain that the victim felt when asked to recount her traumatic experience.[49] | |||||
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| It is worthy to recall the three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. First, an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove. Second, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution. Third, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and can not draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[15] | |||||
|
2006-07-21 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners failed to impute improper or evil motive on the part of either Del Fierro or Bernardo-Almaria to falsely testify against them. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of a prosecution witness to testify falsely against an accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[8] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-entrenched that as an appellate court, we will not disturb the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses as it was in a better position to appreciate the same. The rule is specially so given that there is no showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value, which, if considered, may affect the result of the case.[26] | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| While the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant in accordance with the then prevailing law, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 7659, it erred in not awarding civil indemnity and moral damages. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[26] Moral damages of P50,000.00 is also awarded without need of proof of basis or pleading.[27] | |||||