This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2014-04-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Abat's attempt to escape liability by denying the charge against him and coupling it with the imputation of ill motive against AAA's parents must be ignored. "Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim."[28] More so in this case, where the attribution of the improper motive is against AAA's parents and not her personally. We agree with the RTC when it said: [T]he allegations of the accused that the private complainant might have filed the instant case against him only because of a misunderstanding that ensued between the parents of the private complainant and his mother regarding their property is too flimsy and insignificant for [AAA] to falsely charge him of so serious a crime and to publicly disclose that she had been raped and then undergo the concomitant humiliation, anxiety and exposure to a public trial. It is highly inconceivable that a 15[-]year[-]old girl like [AAA] and who is the niece of the accused would falsely charge him with a serious crime of Rape if what she testified in Court were not the plain truth. Without vacillation, the private complainant submitted herself for medical and genital examination and was confirmed by the doctor who examined her that the private complainant sustained healed hymenal lacerations at 2 and 7 o'clock positions which may be caused by the insertion of a hard object like an erect penis. | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court is not convinced. Pareja's living conditions could have prevented him from acting out on his beastly desires, but they did not. This Court has observed that many of the rape cases appealed to us were not always committed in seclusion. Lust is no respecter of time or place,[34] and rape defies constraints of time and space. In People v. Sangil, Sr.,[35] we expounded on such occurrence in this wise: In People v. Ignacio, we took judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them. Considering the cramped space and meager room for privacy, couples perhaps have gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of sexual congresses which elude the attention of family members; otherwise, under the circumstances, it would be almost impossible to copulate with them around even when asleep. It is also not impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed. One may also suppose that growing children sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in the night. There is no merit in appellant's contention that there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place," and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[21] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[45] | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A He continued on kissing me.[11] To support AAA's charge of rape, the prosecution presented the testimony of Dr. Fajardo, Medico Legal Officer of the NBI, who conducted a medico genital examination on AAA. Dr. Fajardo found an old healed hymenal laceration at 6:00 o'clock position. She stated that based on experience and studies, 90 to 95% of such lacerations are caused by sexual intercourse. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.[12] Since AAA's clear, positive and straightforward testimony is consistent with Dr. Fajardo's medical findings, the prosecution sufficiently established the element of carnal knowledge. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[54] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, THE CRIME HE COMMITTED WAS ONLY ATTEMPTED RAPE.[27] In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[28] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| If the testimony of the victim is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on that basis.[25] The assessment or evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of the victim's testimony is given primordial consideration. As People v. Santos teaches:... We accord great respect on the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, for the trial judge observes the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses in court. His evaluation or assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of testimony acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the victim's testimony. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Lust is no respecter of time and place. Thus, we held that rape can be committed inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping.[38] It is not impossible, nor incredible, for AAA's siblings to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while appellant was raping her.[39] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's weak defense of alibi cannot stand a chance against the declaration of Melissa identifying him as the killer and describing the manner in which he perpetrated the crime. Appellant himself admitted that Melissa, his niece, bore no grudge against him, nor had he offended her.[24] As held in People v. Mangitngit,[25] to wit:x x x The settled jurisprudence is that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, as in the case at bar, constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[26] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[35] Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[36] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Thus, in People v. Mangitngit,[29] this Court rejected the assertion of the therein accused-appellant that rape could not have occurred in the presence of his other children, and without them noticing the commotion. | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, the amounts awarded insofar as the civil indemnity and moral damages are concerned must be modified. This Court has previously ruled that so long as the crime was committed under circumstances that would justify the imposition of the death penalty, the accused shall pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00.[64] This is true even if the death penalty cannot be imposed, as in this case, because said award does not depend on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.[65] The victim shall thus be awarded P75,000.00 in moral damages, instead of P50,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[66] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. It is settled that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony.[38] Unless the trial court ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would reverse or modify the outcome of the case, its findings on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed.[39] Moreover, when a rape victim testifies in a straightforward and candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies, or contradictions on material points, the testimony should be given full faith and credit.[40] And in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party.[41] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A: Nandoon po sa tabi niya.[34] Time and again, we have consistently held that no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[35] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true.[36] | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[28] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[30] A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true.[31] Her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[32] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court correctly rejected the defense of alibi set up by appellant. For alibi to be credible, the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense but must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at that time.[25] In the case at bar, appellant claims that he was in Mabitac, which was seven (7) kilometers away from the locus criminis. The appellate court noted that it was not impossible for appellant to traverse this distance. Moreover, his alibi is uncorroborated. Alibi is a weak defense in light of the positive identification by an eyewitness to the offense.[26] Norma categorically identified appellant as the man who shot her husband. She testified, thus:FISCAL MANGROBANG: | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Plata's alibi is patently weak, considering that the alibi is corroborated by his wife, and a wife is generally perceived to be partial to her husband. Likewise, the testimony of Esther Guevarra is unavailing. To establish alibi, the accused must not only show that he was in a place other than the situs of the crime at the time it was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the same.[44] Granting that Plata had religiously fetched the children of Ester at 11:30 a.m. every weekday, still it is highly probable for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime at the time of the abduction. The distance between Malolos and Bulacan, Bulacan can be negotiated with a 15-minute ride.[45] At all events, appellant's alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the kidnap victim himself, who has no motive to falsely testify.[46] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution in the instant case clearly establishes the guilt of appellant. Aside from the fact that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses,[22] appellant's alibi that he was inside his house when the incident occurred does not preclude his physical presence in the house of the victim considering that their respective residences are only a few meters apart. Moreover, the pieces of evidence constituting the tapestry of circumstantial evidence considered by the trial court in arriving at its decision, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, when viewed in their entirety, are as convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negate the innocence of appellant, to wit: Appellant was drunk, very mad and carrying a jungle bolo when he went to the victim's sister, Floricita, to ask the whereabouts of his alleged missing gun from the victim. When appellant learned that the victim was already sleeping, he went to the latter's hut. | |||||