Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANDRES MASAPOL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183577 2010-02-01	PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The factual question raised by the appellant fails to impress. It is an inconsequential matter that does not bear upon the elements of the crime of rape. The decisive factor in the prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts indispensable to the guilt or innocence of the appellant for the crime charged.[27] As the inconsistencies alleged by the appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape, they cannot be used as ground for his acquittal.[28]
	GR NO. 149753 2006-11-27	MIGUEL COSME v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is not persuaded. The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[34] Consistent with this rule, the fact that the CA discounted private complainant's claim that he gave P200,000.00 in cash to petitioner does not mean that the remaining portions of his testimony should not also be given credence.
	GR NO. 172870 2006-09-22	PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The factual question raised by appellant as to whether it was XYZ herself who invited him to the dormitory is an inconsequential matter that does not bear upon the elements of the crime. What is decisive in a prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged.[35] As the inconsistencies alleged by appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape, they cannot be used as grounds for his acquittal.
	GR No. 147855 2004-05-28	PEOPLE v. CONDE RAPISORA Y ESTRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, the purported discrepancies and inconsistencies between Helen's sworn statement and her testimony in court do not discredit her. The infirmity of affidavits as a species of evidence is a common occurrence in judicial experience.[32] Affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by other persons who used their own language in writing the statements. Being ex parte, they are almost always incomplete and inaccurate, but these factors do not denigrate the credibility of witnesses.[33] As such, affidavits are generally considered to be inferior to testimonies given in court. Also, victims of rape are not expected to have an accurate or errorless recollection of the traumatic experience that was so humiliating and painful, that she might, in fact, be trying to obliterate it from her memory. [34]