This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2014-02-19 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often 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 result of the case. The trial judge enjoys the advantage of observing the witness's deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" -- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness's honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Penilla's insistence that he was then a virile young man of twenty-three years, lusted after by a separated and older woman, loses significance in light of the dictum that in rape cases, the moral character of the victim is immaterial. Rape may be committed not only against single women and children but also against those who are married, middle-aged, separated, or pregnant. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape.[15] Correlatively and more importantly, the libidinousness of AAA, which is not accepted as a common attribute, should have been proven outside of the incident on the midnight of 22 October 1999. | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Then to raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur.[28] | |||||
|
2012-10-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[29] The Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule under the proven circumstances of this case. | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The presence of healed or fresh hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[34] However, it is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[35] Thus, the findings of Dr. Reyes corroborate and support the testimony of AAA. | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Espino, Jr.,[11] we said: Time and again, we have held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often 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 result of the case. The trial judge enjoys the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In almost all cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the persons involved can testify as to its occurrence. In this case, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the CA affirms the same, as in this case.[11] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath"[19] are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[20] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[21] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the appellant and the complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[19] Thus, in the disposition and review of rape cases, the Court is guided by these principles: first, the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; second, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; third, unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal; fourth, 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; and, fifth, 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.[20] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant has made much of the absence of scratches or contusions in AAA's external genitalia. Given the unwavering testimony of AAA as to her ordeal in the hands of appellant, however, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against appellant. As aptly observed by the CA, the medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries, such as freshly broken hymen, or laceration, on the complainant's body, does not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[15] This is because complete or full penetration of the victim's private parts is not required to consummate the crime of rape. Neither is hymenal laceration or like vaginal injury an element of the crime of rape,[16] albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[17] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[18] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious thesis that a minor rape victim always results in vaginal injury rests on a lot of oversimplification and, hence, must be eschewed. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[22] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her harrowing ordeal in the hands of appellant, the Court cannot accord merit to the latter's argument that the lack of patent physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against him. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of fresh external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[23] hymenal laceration and like vaginal injuries not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[24] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is, to repeat, sufficient to convict. [25] | |||||
|
2010-04-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. In criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[8] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Besides, in order for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the appellant was somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[49] In the case at bench, the appellant was in the house of Aurelia Susmena which is located in the same barangay where the body of the victim was discovered. Thus, it was not at all impossible for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[4] We find no reason to deviate from the general rule under the circumstances of this case. | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In view of the intrinsic nature of rape where only two persons are usually involved, extreme vigilance must be exercised in examining the testimony of the complainant,[8] for a conviction for rape may lie based solely on her testimony if it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[9] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court is not convinced. To start with, full penile penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina of a girl of tender years, is not a consummating ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudenda by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[20] And given AAA's unwavering testimony as to her ordeal in the hands of Araojo, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against Araojo. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape,[21] hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape.[22] A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration.[23] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. [24] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The above testimony does not diminish Conchita's credibility as a witness because the inconsistencies found by appellant were merely trivial and do not bear on the very fact that Conchita was raped through force and intimidation. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[22] More so, the minor inconsistencies signified that the witness was neither coached nor lying on the witness stand. What is important is her complete and vivid narration of the rape itself, which the trial court herein found to be truthful and credible.[23] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape.[19] In the instant case, only relationship was duly alleged and proved. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Achas has made much of the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on AAA. Given the unwavering testimony of AAA as to her ordeal in the hands of Achas, however, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against Achas. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[25] This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape,[26] albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[27] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution for rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[28] | |||||
|
2009-04-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, while the informations allege that the rapes were committed on or about the months of February and March 2000, the lack of particularity in time or date does not affect the outcome of the instant case. The allegations as to the dates of commission substantially apprised accused-appellant of the rape charges against him as the elements of rape were in the informations. He, therefore, cannot insist that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.[16] As the appellate court pertinently noted, the conviction of accused-appellant does not depend on the time the rapes were committed but on the credibility of AAA, whom the trial court found to have testified in a clear, straightforward, and consistent manner. Her testimony outweighs accused-appellant's weak defense of alibi. He may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[17] a factor which exists in the present case. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil liability of appellant, we find that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's award to the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, as well as the CA's additional award of P50,000.00 as moral damages even without need of further proof, considering that AAA sustained mental, physical and psychological suffering.[60] | |||||