This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-12-11 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Such is not the case here. It has been held that the lone testimony of the complainant is sufficient to form the basis for conviction provided that it meets the test of credibility.[25] There is ample reason to apply the said ruling to the case at bar. First, Maylene did not tarry in reporting the offense committed against her. The lack of delay in reporting her defilement has been seen to greatly reinforce the credibility of the complainant.[26] Second, appellant's bare denial cannot stand against and unequivocal assertion to the contrary of the rape victim, specially when the results of the medical examination supports the victim's claim. Carnal knowledge is deemed established when the testimony of the complainant is consistent with the medical findings.[27] Third, the defense failed to show any plausible motive which would have impelled Maylene to perjure herself and knowingly hurl false accusations against an innocent man.[28] | |||||
|
2001-08-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is not disputed that accused-appellant and complainant, as well as their respective families, belong to the urban poor. Accused-appellant admitted that he and complainant's mother always had fairly good relations.[35] We find it hard to believe, therefore, that, in accusing him, complainant and her mother simply want to extort money from accused-appellant or his family. In the absence of evidence of any improper motive, it is presumed that no such motive exists. [36] We have more than once ruled that it is wholly unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her own daughter, a child of tender years at that, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape if she were not motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter's transgressor punished accordingly.[37] We do not see why this same observation should not apply to the mothers of the numerous hapless children, like complainant, who inhabit our streets. | |||||