This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense of appellant is anchored on denial and alibi which do not impress belief. As often stressed, "[m]ere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim."[19] In this case, appellant's testimony, particularly his denial, was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Also, for his alibi to prosper, appellant must establish that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[20] Appellant failed to establish these elements. The fact that "AAA" was living with her grandparents did not preclude the possibility that appellant was present at the crime scenes during their commission. Appellant himself admitted that the distance between his residence and that of "AAA's" grandparents is only approximately 7½ kilometers and which can be traversed by riding a pedicab in less than 30 minutes.[21] In other words, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the situs of the crimes during the dates when the separate acts of rape were committed. Moreover, it has been invariably ruled that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. Here, appellant was positively identified by "AAA" as the perpetrator of the crimes without showing any dubious reason or fiendish motive on her part to falsely charge him. The contention of appellant that "AAA" was motivated by hatred because he prevented her from having a boyfriend is unconvincing. There is nothing novel in such a contrived defense. "Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim."[22] It is a jurisprudentially conceded rule that "[i]t 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."[23] | |||||
|
2010-03-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the appellant, while the defense has no contrary evidence to rely on. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the self-serving defense of appellant cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimony of the witness. Alibi is an inherently weak defense viewed with suspicion because it is not difficult to fabricate,[59] so much so that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish two elements - (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[60] Accused-appellant failed in this wise. | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that AAA charged him of rape only because she bore grudges against him is likewise unmeritorious. This Court is not dissuaded from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant by motives of feuds, resentment or revenge.[68] As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals: Indeed, mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would not only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their families but also bring their fathers into the gallows of death.[69] The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape, exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial and subjecting her private parts to examination if such heinous crime was not in fact committed.[70] No person, much less a woman, could attain such height of cruelty to one who has sired her, and from whom she owes her very existence, and for which she naturally feels loving and lasting gratefulness.[71] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own father to jail for the most of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of shame.[72] It is highly improbable for [AAA] against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality has been shown to fake charges much more against her own father. In fact her testimony is entitled to greater weight since her accusing words were directed against a close relative.[73] | |||||