This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, accused-appellant's bare denial and uncorroborated alibi deserve scant consideration. The defense of alibi should be considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated.[25] Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.[26] AAA's positive testimony that she was sexually ravished by accused-appellant, coupled with the appalling fact that she got pregnant at her tender age, certainly deserve more credence and greater evidentiary weight than that of accused-appellant's uncorroborated defenses. | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Evidently, these inconsistencies refer only to trivial and inconsequential matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[54] A witness is not expected to remember with perfect recollection every minute detail of her harrowing experience. A minor mistake as to the exact time of the commission of the rape is immaterial and cannot discredit the testimony of a witness. This Court has repeatedly held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[55] Indeed, the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission.[56] What is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by the accused against the complainant has been sufficiently proven. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[57] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant's alibi was properly rejected by the lower courts. For alibi to prosper, appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[31] In the instant case, appellant failed to show that it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime on the occasion of the rape. | |||||