This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Generally, suggestiveness in the identification procedure should always be proven by evidence. If an allegation of suggestiveness is not proven, this court often affirms the conviction.[117] In Pavillare, this court ruled that the appellant who argued the impropriety of the police line-up should have presented during trial the police officers who conducted the line-up.[118] | |||||
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, knowledge of a person's name is not necessary for proper identification.[71] Mrs. Cesar may not know the names of her abductors, but she was nevertheless familiar with their physical features and was, thus, able to describe them quite extensively in her Sinumpaang Salaysay. Hence, it is perfectly logical that Mrs. Cesar was only able to identify appellant Paghunasan upon seeing him in person during the police line-up. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, the element of physical impossibility is absent.[24] Dolorico failed to present any witness who could vouch that he never left his residence on March 29, 2002. Thus, although the crime scene was far and required a four-hour walk from his house, his presence thereat is still quite possible. On the other hand, while Gary presented a witness who testified that he was in Mugo, Cagayan from January to October 2002, her direct testimony was deleted from the records. Even if we could consider said testimony, such witness failed to vouch for his presence in Mugo, Cagayan on March 29, 2002. | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Q. Did he stay long on top of you? A. Yes sir.[26] (Emphasis supplied) As a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit, for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[27] Generally, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. And so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility and unless the same is controverted by competent physical and testimonial evidence, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[28] | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| bleeding when she was examined. This is definitive proof that penetration did, in fact, occur. It is well-settled that lacerations, whether fresh or healed, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also, in the case of People v. Tolentino,[12] it was shown that the accused therein struck the victim's head that made her pass out. Later, the victim was found on the street near the accused's house still unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she declared that she had been raped and that she could identify the person who molested her. It was in the police line-up that the victim pinned down her assailant. Notwithstanding the absence of details as to how the victim was raped, the Court found the accused guilty of the charge. | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Much less convincing is appellant's proposition that ill feelings and ill motives of the victim's mother impelled the filing of the charges against him. Ill-motives become inconsequential where there are affirmative or categorical declarations establishing appellant's accountability for the felony.[52] We have, furthermore, observed not a few persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge.[53] However, as borne out by a plethora of cases, family resentment, revenge or feuds have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast and unyielding throughout the direct and cross- examination that she was sexually abused.[54] It would take a certain degree of perversity on the part of a parent, especially a mother, to concoct a false charge of rape and then use her daughter as an instrument to settle her grudge.[55] | |||||