This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-08-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the facts and circumstances duly proved in the case at bar, we find that appellant can only be convicted of simple rape, and not statutory rape, because of the failure of the prosecution to prove by independent proof the minority of the victim. Age of the victim is an essential element in the crime of statutory rape and must be indubitably proved by the prosecution. Failure to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape.[24] | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court is uniquely positioned to determine whether a witness is telling the truth. We find no basis to deviate from the settled rule that the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit, as in this case where the facts establish the sexual assault on her.[23] The testimony given was simple and straightforward, unshaken by a rigid cross-examination and unflawed by any inconsistency or contradiction. The same must be given full faith and credit.[24] Venilda testified thus: PROSECUTOR Q Now, on the said date and time, meaning November 23, 1998 at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, where was your mother and your father? A In Ligao, in the town. In the poblacion. | |||||
|
2001-02-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Besides, the testimony of a rape victim, who is young or of tender age, is credible and deserves full credit, especially where the facts point to her having been a victim of sexual assault[12]. Certainly the victim would not make public the offense, undergo the trial and humiliation of a public trial if she had not in fact been raped[13]. | |||||
|
2001-02-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The prosecution presented Lori's baptismal certificate[22] which stated that she was born on February 24, 1985[23]. Such documentary evidence constitutes independent proof corroborating the testimony of Lori and her mother. This Court pointed out in People vs. Pine[24]:"To be sure, the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition. It cannot, however, be considered proof of age beyond reasonable doubt. In those cases in which we held the victims' testimonies as to their age to be admissible, their testimonies were corroborated by the testimonies of the mothers, the fathers, or the grandfathers of the victim or by documentary evidence, such as baptismal certificates, school records, and the like. xxx" The accused-appellant invites attention to the fact that the mother of Lori was "evasive" when asked in court about the source of the information contained in the baptismal certificate, thus: | |||||