This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-07-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the 1903 case of U.S. v. Bergantino,[33] we accepted testimonial evidence to prove the minority and age of the accused in the absence of any document or other satisfactory evidence showing the date of birth. This was followed by U.S. v. Roxas[34] where the defendant's statement about his age was considered sufficient, even without corroborative evidence, to establish that he was a minor of 16 years at the time he committed the offense charged. Subsequently, in People v. Tismo,[35] the Court appreciated the minority and age of the accused on the basis of his claim that he was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense in the absence of any contradictory evidence or objection on the part of the prosecution. Then, in People v. Villagracia,[36] we found the testimony of the accused that he was less than 15 years old sufficient to establish his minority. We reiterated these dicta in the cases of People v. Morial[37] and David v. Court of Appeals,[38] and ruled that the allegations of minority and age by the accused will be accepted as facts upon the prosecution's failure to disprove the claim by contrary evidence. | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the crime of rape, the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[19] Ultimately and oftentimes, the resolution of the case hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony - a question that this Court usually leaves for the trial court to determine, for it is doctrinal that factual findings of trial courts, particularly the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are given much weight and accorded the highest respect on appeal.[20] This is only proper considering that the trial court has the unique and singular opportunity to personally observe a witness' demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.[21] It is already well-settled that an appellate court would generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of a clear showing that the court had failed to appreciate facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the outcome of the case.[22] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In rape cases specifically, the credibility of the complainant is of paramount importance as oftentimes her testimony, when it satisfies the test of credibility, may be the sole basis for an accused's conviction.[34] In People v. Tismo,[35] we reiterated the rule that - | |||||
|
2007-01-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All in all, the prosecution's evidence is hazy and contradictory sorely lacking as it is in material details. Admittedly, a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case, however, the chain of circumstances does not show a coherent and consistent story that would give rise to a certitude sufficient to convince this Court to impose on appellant the very grave penalty of reclusion perpetua. His own defense is admittedly weak. But conviction is never founded on the weakness of the defense. Rather, it always rests on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)[28] It is inherent in the crime of rape that the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[29] However, the courts are not bound to treat the testimony of the victim as gospel truth. Judges are duty-bound to subject her testimony to the most rigid and careful scrutiny lest vital details which could affect the outcome of the case be overlooked or cast aside. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Verily, the "sweetheart theory" advanced by the accused must fail. Not only did Michelle vehemently deny any amorous relationship with the accused, the latter also failed to present any credible evidence to prove the supposed intimate relations, e.g., love letters, gifts, etc. Clearly, his "sweetheart theory" is purely self-serving and carries no evidentiary weight at all.[16] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| EDGARDO's argument that SALEN bore no injury is irrelevant. In proving rape it is not necessary that the act was committed with genital injury.[29] And a finding that the victim's hymen is intact, as in SALEN's case, does not disprove rape.[30] In fact, a medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape.[31] Nonetheless, the NBI medico-legal officer supported the finding of rape. He concluded that SALEN had sexual intercourse and was not a virgin anymore.[32] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The medico-legal concluded that there must have been a forceful covering of Editha's nose and mouth because of the presence of the slit wounds on both sides of her face, and that in 30 seconds unconsciousness and weakening resulted, with the vaginal injuries contributing to her death.[23] As to the crime of rape, there is much to be desired with respect to the prosecution's evidence therefor, but not for the reason adduced by the trial court, namely, the absence of spermatozoa in EDITHA's private part and thereabout. It is well settled that the absence of spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not negate the commission of rape.[24] Our doubt on the commission of rape is based on the fact that there is at all no convincing proof that the laceration of the vagina and the rupture of the hymen of EDITHA were caused in the course of coitus or by a male organ. Our meticulous reading of the testimony of Dr. Tebangin disclosed that he was never asked if the laceration and the rupture could have been caused by the penis of a human being. Needless to state, these could have been caused by any object other than the penis of a person. | |||||