This case has been cited 28 times or more.
|
2013-01-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Verily, there has never been any uniformity or consistency of behavior to be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested.[46] The Court has pointed out that some of them have found the courage early on to publicly denounce the abuses they experienced, but that there were others who have opted to initially keep their harrowing ordeals to themselves and to just move on with their lives as if nothing had happened,[47] until the limits of their tolerance were reached. AAA belonged to the latter group of victims, as her honest declarations to the trial court revealed. Also, we cannot expect from the immature and inexperienced AAA to measure up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that we would expect from adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them to stand up more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape to the proper authorities have not always been considered as an indication of a false accusation.[48] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Based on AAA's account, appellant did not undress her completely -- her blouse and bra were merely lifted up ("nililis") while her undergarments were just pulled down, which therefore explains why she still had her clothes on when she crawled to her grandfather's farm. Nonetheless, this matter raised by appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters -- not to the central fact of the crime -- do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[34]For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged.[35]It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[36] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[39] And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformaby with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case.[40] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. x x x.[26] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused's innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. And, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one (1) of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. That which is favorable to the accused should be considered.[38] After all, mas vale que queden sin castigar diez reos presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente.[39] Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one (1) innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[40] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, AAA's testimony that she was repeatedly raped and sexually abused by the appellant was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician, P/Sr. Insp. Carpio. Settled is the rule that where a rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[58] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The inconsistencies mentioned by appellant relate only to minor details and not to the fact of the fatal stabbing of his wife and two (2) children in his own hands. We have consistently ruled that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. Thus, although there may be inconsistencies on the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[24] Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters - not to the central fact of the crime - do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness as long as it is coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[25] | |||||
|
2010-01-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The victim's testimony that accused-appellant inserted his organ into her vagina is further corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Maribel Lazo, the health officer who examined her. The fact that Dr. Lazo found healed hymenal lacerations about three or four weeks old, when she examined the victim on June 17, 1998, confirmed the victim's claim that she was raped sometime in May 1998. Dr. Lazo explained that these lacerations could have been caused by a male sexual organ or any blunt instrument. She further testified that the victim was no longer a virgin at the time of her examination. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. Where a rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| was only a few steps away. The rape was committed in a matter of minutes. Thus, it is highly probable that the members of the drinking party would not have noticed accused-appellant's absence for a few minutes. Certainly, it is unbelievable that their attention was focused all the time to the movements of accused-appellant. The testimony of Emma Santos, being a relative and a sister of accused-appellant, is highly suspect and should be received with caution.[26] In fact, her testimony was bereft of any evidence that would negate the commission of the offense by accused-appellant. Significantly, her testimony pertained to negative averments vis-a-vis complainant's affirmative testimony. An affirmative testimony is far weightier than a negative one, especially when the former comes from a credible witness.[27] Hence, we discredit totally the testimonies of Pangilinan, Sabado, DDD, Santos, and accused-appellant. In contrast, AAA narrated the harrowing events which transpired that night: | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The defense presented appellant's father, Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to corroborate appellant's version of the incident. Initially, it must be emphasized that the testimony of Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. should be received with caution he being the father of appellant.[40] Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. testified that upon opening the door of his room, he saw PO3 Lubos and some policemen beating appellant. He uttered "apay dayta?" (Why is that?), left the scene, and went back to his room. There was no testimony at all from him that he tried to restrain PO3 Lubos and the policemen from mauling appellant, or that he immediately called or sought the help of barangay officials or higher authorities. His court statement hardly inspires belief as it would be highly unnatural for a father not to react defensively or sought help if his child is being maltreated in his presence. In addition, the physical examination report on appellant states that no injuries were observed on appellant's body immediately after his arrest. His testimony, therefore, deserves scant consideration. | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, we uphold the grant of moral damages of P50,000.00 but increase the awarded exemplary damages P30,000.00, both pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[47] Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[48] Article 2230 of the Civil Code justifies the award of exemplary damages because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of relationship between AAA and petitioner and dwelling.[49] As discussed above, the relationship (between the parties) is not disputed. We appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based on AAA's testimony that the rape was committed in their house.[50] While dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information, established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the award of exemplary damages.[51] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| xxx. The testimony of the offended girl was given in a straightforward manner unimpaired by material discrepancies and contradictions and consistent with ordinary human experience. Her testimony under the grueling examination by the prosecution as well as the defense undoubtedly bears the imprint of truth and therefore must be accepted.[21] We have time and again said that the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it has the opportunity to examine their demeanor on the witness stand.[22] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[23] We find nothing on record that would compel us to deviate from such well-entrenched rule so as to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the victim AAA. | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It appears that the affirmative answer of AAA actually referred to the question that her father slept. It should be noted that prior to said question of the defense counsel as to whether BBB slept, the defense counsel had already asked AAA several questions. It has been held that a witness may contradict himself on the circumstances of an act or different acts due to a long series of questions on cross-examination during which the mind becomes tired to such a degree that the witness does not understand what he is testifying about, especially if the questions, in their majority are leading and tend to make him ratify a former contrary declaration.[29] Moreover, the alleged inconsistency pertains to a matter extraneous to the crime of rape and does not detract from the fact that AAA had indeed been sexually defiled.[30] Thus, it is immaterial where BBB came from when he arrived in his house at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning of [14 January 2000].[31] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The RTC and CA correctly awarded the private complainant the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity and another P50,000 as moral damages, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[47] Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages that must be awarded upon a finding of guilt in rape cases.[48] Moral damages, on the other hand, are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[49] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA correctly increased the amount of moral damages to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[61] Moral damages, is automatically due to rape victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[62] The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity is similarly proper and is in fact mandatory upon the finding of rape.[63] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, weighed against the positive and unequivocal statements of complainant, accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi cannot stand. To stress, when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the ages of 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by a court trial if her accusation were untrue.[23] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's denial of the crime cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victim. As held in People v. Suarez, a rape victim's straightforward and candid account, corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This conclusion becomes all the more firm where, as in this case, the child-victim takes the witness stand. Previous decisions involving rape cases have shown us the high improbability that a girl of tender years would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[24] Also, as correctly pointed out by the CA, corroboration of a child's testimony is not even required under Sec. 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, thus:Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. [The child's] testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases. | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As this Court has repeatedly observed, no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress, and rape victims are no different from them.[60] Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[61] Emphasis must also be given to the fact that AAA was only 10 years old when her father started raping her, and this continued until she was 17 years old; thus, she was still a minor. She cannot therefore be expected to react as an adult and realize the repercussions of the wrong committed upon her by the man she considered as her father.[62] This Court indeed has not lain down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted by any modicum of doubt.[63] In this case, as the appellate court has observed, "AAA opted to suffer her ordeal in silence, keep the tormenting experience to herself and make things just as normal as if nothing happened."[64] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Maurito and Ramon's defense of alibi and denial, like Rolly's justification of self-defense, are unavailing and worthless. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses,[45] and it is not at all persuasive in the instant case when pitted against the positive and convincing identification by all the witnesses of the prosecution.[46] Here, the defense of alibi and denial, i.e., Maurito's plea that he was asleep from the time prior to seeing the victim struggling at the creek; and Ramon's argument that he was at Bagumbayan Norte, Naga City, to buy nails, do not evince credible exculpation. We quote with approval the appellate court's pronouncement rejecting Maurito and Ramon's excuses, viz:The time-tested rule is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses, more so in this case where appellant failed to prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene (citation omitted). for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the alleged crime. Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water. Furthermore, appellant's denial fails in the light of the positive identification and declarations of the prosecution witnesses. The positive identification of an accused by eyewitnesses prevails over the defenses of denial of alibi and denial. Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. Being evidence that is negative in nature and self-serving, they cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence (citation omitted).[47] It is noted that Rolly and Maurito acknowledged being at the crime scene.[48] They have not shown the impossibility of their committing the bestial deed although they were allegedly in another place at some point, given the distance of their supposed whereabouts from the scene of the crime. Equally unimpressed with the alibi and denial of appellants, the trial court held that: | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it is best to emphasize that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation;[43] under these circumstances, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the best opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[44] Such an opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[45] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[46] When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not do the same.[47] When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[48] In the instant case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We do so for the following critical points: First, all the necessary elements for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were established. The elements are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[49] It is beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, as ruled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz narrated that he was introduced by the informant to defendant-appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Ortiz then told defendant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu worth P200.00. PO2 Ortiz was then handed a small plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. After his receipt of the item, he handed defendant-appellant the money. PO2 Ortiz then gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself to defendant-appellant as a police office. Following the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Thus: | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Faced with the clear and positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of qualified rape, his defense of denial or alibi is unavailing and worthless. Alibi is an inherently a weak defense,[37] and it is not at all persuasive in the instant case when pitted against the positive and convincing identification by the victim,[38] more so, when corroborated by an eyewitness. For one thing, accused-appellant did not present any witness to corroborate his claim. For another, he has not shown the impossibility of his committing the bestial deed although he was allegedly in another barrio at the time, given the distance of the place from the scene of the crime. No less importantly, the trial judge was equally unimpressed by his manner on the witness stand, which suggested nothing of his innocence. Well-settled is the legal principle that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[39] In other words, the defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the prosecution has strong and convincing evidence identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator. | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the review of rape cases where, most often than not, the credibility of the victim is in issue, the Court consistently relies on the assessment of the trial court.[9] It has long been held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses should be viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness box, and the manner in which they give their testimony.[10] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which that court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[11] None of the exceptions obtain herein. | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An affirmative testimony merits greater weight than a negative one, especially when the former comes from a credible witness. Categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[43] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| If at all, Isabel's testimony refers only to collateral matters. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness as long as it is coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[21] | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit.[21] In People v. Pacheco,[22] we held that when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the ages of 12 and 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed in the course of trial if her accusations were untrue. Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[23] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a false accusation. The principle applies with greater force where, as in this case, AAA was only 11 years old and was, in all likelihood, susceptible to intimidation and threats of physical harm especially from a close relative.[50] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[41] The defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the prosecution has strong, clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator.[42] In this case, both BBB and AAA, minors and relatives of appellant, positively identified him as their rapist in open court. The lower courts found no issue detracting from the credibility of such identification. | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[8] Unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[9] | |||||