This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[19] Otherwise called as the "sweetheart defense," it is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience.[20] The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[21] Appellant presented no such evidence to substantiate his claim. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the OSG succinctly put things in perspective when it argued that "[AAA] could hardly be faulted for behaving as she did. Being in her early years, and [accused-appellant] exercising moral ascendancy over her, she could not be expected to go against his orders, especially when the history of violence between them is considered. Such history has instilled fear upon her which started since she was still a child x x x her passive submission to the sexual act will neither mitigate nor absolve [accused-appellant] from liability." In any case, with such shocking and horrifying experience, it would not be reasonable to impose upon AAA any standard form of reaction, especially at such tender age. Time and again, this Court has recognized that different people react differently to a given situation involving a startling occurrence.[37] The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently - some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may openly welcome the intrusion.[38] More to the point, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused.[39] | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Firstly, the appeal of appellant Jastiva centers on the credibility of AAA, the main prosecution witness. But credibility of a witness is the sole province of the RTC being the trial court in this case. Basic is the rule that the findings of fact of the trial court on matters of credibility of witnesses are generally conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts. Such conclusiveness derives from the trial court's having the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the victim when he/she testified at the trial.[42] Undeniably, the calibration of the testimony of a witness, and the assessment of the probative weight thereof, are virtually left, almost entirely, to the trial court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness at the stand. Unless there are substantial matters that might have been overlooked or discarded, generally, the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of a witness will not be disturbed on appeal.[43] The foregoing is especially true when such findings are affirmed by the appellate court. In this case, with appellant Jastiva not showing that the RTC and the Court of Appeals overlooked any fact or material of consequence that could have altered the outcome had they taken it into consideration, this Court will not disturb on appeal the RTC's findings of fact, but must fully accept the same. | |||||
|
2009-02-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience.[14] For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence.[15] The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[16] There is none presented here by the defense. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As correctly observed by the CA, the inconsistencies which appellant claims afflict the testimony of AAA pertain to such collateral matters not directly related to the element of carnal knowledge. The exact date of the incident and the place where it took place are not essential elements of the crime of rape; hence, inconsistencies regarding this detail in the statements of AAA and her testimony do not detract from her categorical testimony on the witness stand that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[90] Also, at what definite place appellant wielded his gun and against whom he made threats with it are matters too marginal to the fact of carnal knowledge that inconsistencies regarding them have no bearing on the outcome of the case, in the light of the unwavering testimony of AAA that appellant had poked a gun at her at the time of the rape incident.[91] Likewise, the disparity in AAA's statements on the manner and degree of her resistance to the assault is not significant for vigorous physical resistance is not a requisite of the crime of rape carried out with intimidation or threat to the life or personal safety of the victim, especially one as vulnerable as AAA on account of her tender age and humble education .[92] | |||||
|
2007-09-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, we reduce the award of moral damages from P75,000 to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[6] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Also, in a long line of cases, we have held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victim's testimony because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.[10] | |||||