This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy involving only two persons and not generally attempted save in secluded places far from prying eyes. By the intrinsic nature of rape cases, the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended girl herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the People's single witness of the actual occurrence. [12] Accordingly, certain guiding principles have been formulated in resolving rape cases. Foremost of these: an offended woman's testimony hurdling the exacting test of credibility would suffice to convict.[13] In fine, the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape.[14] Withal, in passing upon the credibility of the victim-witness, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the evaluation and findings of the trial court.[15] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is nothing in the records of this case that would impel this Court to deviate from the aforesaid findings and conclusion of the trial court, which findings were also affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, this Court finds that AAA testified in a categorical, straightforward and consistent manner. Moreover, it is settled that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed [38] and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, that is sufficient to convict the accused.[39] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court did not doubt AAA's credibility throughout the course of the trial, especially when she was called to the witness stand to narrate her ordeal. This crucial fact has been seconded by the detailed examination of the case made by the CA in its September 16, 2005 Decision.[12] We see no cogent reason why the findings of the trial court should be altered. We have repeatedly ruled that, on the issue of credibility, the testimonies of victims who are of tender age are credible.[13] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that when a woman, moreso if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed[25] and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, that is sufficient to convict the accused.[26] As in this case, when AAA testified in court, her testimony described in details the hideous experiences suffered by her on 21 November 1999 and sometime in December 1999 in the hands of her own father. In her narration on the manner of how the appellant took advantage of her, she never wavered in her testimonies. In fact, she even exemplified the details of the incident without flourish and innuendo. | |||||
|
2005-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review.[33] A review of the prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution had sufficiently established the prima facie presumption that petitioner had knowledge that he had no sufficient funds at the time he issued the subject check. Private complainant testified that her lawyer sent petitioner a demand letter.[34] Susan Cruz categorically testified that she personally delivered said letter to petitioner who refused to receive the same, thus constraining Susan just to leave a copy thereof with him.[35] However, it is unrefuted that petitioner failed to make good the checks within five banking days. Thus, the presumption of "knowledge" on the part of petitioner at the time he issued the subject checks has been established. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption. In fact, it is significant to note that petitioner himself admitted that he did not have sufficient funds at the time he issued the subject check.[36] Moreover, petitioner likewise admitted that he ordered the bank to stop payment of said check for no apparent reason on August 3, 1981, or twenty-six days before its due date. | |||||