This case has been cited 4 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] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Motives such as feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim. Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused.[28] In the present case, AAA categorically identified appellant as the one who ravished her. Her account of the rape incidents, as found by the lower courts, was credible. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Domingo Catalo testified that he was part of the drinking party. He did not see the other Basadas there and it was only Reynaldo who fought with Jill on that occasion. Concepcion Cristobal, another witness, testified that Ricardo was her stay-in worker on the day of the stabbing incident. Finally, Tirso Ramiscal corroborated the alibis of Pedro and Crisanto that they were at that time at the San Mateo cockpit. Although ordinarily the defense of alibi cannot prevail in the face of positive identification,[4] that rule cannot apply in this case because of the utterly dubious stories of those who identified the supposed assailants. | |||||
|
2009-08-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable.[26] It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient.[27] Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.[28] | |||||