This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that in a catena of cases we have reiterated the principle that the matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is not for the defendant or the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor.[51] It cannot be overemphasized that the trial court must accord full opportunity for the prosecution, more so in criminal cases, to adduce evidence to prove its case and to properly ventilate the issues absent patent showing of dilatory or delaying tactics. The reason is obvious: it is tasked to produce and adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Sans such evidence, a dismissal of the criminal case on a demurrer to the evidence is proper. In the case at bar, there was no showing that the presentation of the three (3) witnesses previously approved by the trial court would be dilatory and manifestly for delay. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's arguments crumble under the weight of overwhelming evidence against him. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court barring arbitrariness and oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance[18] for which there are none in this case. Besides, Kristine Joy's testimony is indeed worthy of full faith and credence as there is no proof that she was motivated to falsely accuse petitioner. Thus, we stress anew that no young and decent girl like Kristine Joy would fabricate a story of sexual abuse, subject herself to medical examination and undergo public trial, with concomitant ridicule and humiliation, if she is not impelled by a sincere desire to put behind bars the person who assaulted her.[19] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In another futile attempt to discredit Helen, the appellant characterizes her conduct before, during and after the incident as unnatural.[37] The appellant is obviously clutching at straw. Times without number, this Court has held that the workings of the human mind placed under a great deal of emotional and psychological stress (such as during rape) are unpredictable, and different people react differently. [38] There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, frightful or traumatic experience some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility.[39] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. Case law has it that the failure of the victim to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[37] Resistance is not an element of rape and the absence thereof is not tantamount to consent.[38] The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[39] In fact, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life or personal safety.[40] Indeed, it has been said that, in rape cases, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained injuries in the hands of the rapist. It suffices that intercourse takes place against her will or that she yields because of a genuine apprehension of great harm.[41] | |||||
|
2004-04-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court does not see how Prudencia, a married woman, and mother of four children, could demean her womanhood, risk public censure, and expose herself to the rigors, embarrassments and headaches of a public trial, if her motive was other than to secure justice. As aptly pointed out in People v. Dagami [57] | |||||