This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The lame defense of denial is all that appellant could offer against the prosecution evidence. Denial is a negative and self-serving evidence that requires to be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence of nonculpability to merit credibility.[57] Otherwise, it will not overcome the testimony of the prosecution witness/es who testified on affirmative matters.[58] Except for the testimonial assertion of appellant in the present case, no credible corroborating evidence was presented by the defense to bolster his denial. Emelina's positive assertions that she handed to appellant the money to be delivered to a money changer in Mabini, Manila, and that he did not return the service motorcycle, prevail over the denial of the appellant. Appellant's admission[59] that he was at E. Gloria Money Changer shop in the morning of July 11, 2007 further served to bolster the testimony of Emelina. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Yoon has denied AAA's allegations of rape. Denial is to be sure a legitimate defense in rape cases. But bare assertions of not having committed the acts complained of cannot overcome the positive, straightforward, unequivocal, and categorical testimony of the victim. An affirmative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness, is far stronger than a negative one.[23] Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak, being self-serving negative evidence undeserving of weight in law;[24] it cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[25] In the case at bar, Yoon failed to present convincing proof in support of his denial. | |||||
|
2008-11-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We likewise uphold the award of damages. Jurisprudence holds that for the special circumstances of minority and relationship to be appreciated between the victim and the accused as her uncle, as here, within the third civil degree, this must be particularly alleged in the Information.[22] Moreover, although minority was sufficiently alleged, the circumstance was not proved or established by the prosecution apart from AAA's testimony on the date she was born.[23] As we have previously held, the circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself.[24] Since qualified rape was not sufficiently alleged in the Informations against accused-appellant, the award of PhP 50,000 only as civil indemnity for each count of simple rape is warranted. The award of PhP 50,000 as moral damages is sustained as it is awarded without need of proof of mental anguish or moral suffering.[25] The deletion of exemplary damages is also correct as it cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[26] | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a youthful rape victim is given full weight and credence considering that when a girl says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[25] It is against human nature for a young girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father.[26] | |||||