This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the testimony of complainant must be considered and calibrated in its entirety, and not in its truncated portion or isolated passages thereof.[27] The true meaning of answers to questions propounded to a witness is to be ascertained with due consideration of all the questions and answers given thereto. The whole impression or effect of what has been said or done must be considered, and not individual words or phrases alone.[28] Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a question may be supplied or clarified by one's answer to other questions.[29] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Appellant's denial and alibi are not worthy of belief. It is an oft-quoted doctrine that positive identification prevails over denial and alibi.[68] Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[69] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence tending to show that AAA was a mental retardate. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.[57] However, this fact was not alleged in the complaint filed in this case and therefore cannot be the basis for conviction.[58] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that Mylene's family falsely charged him with rape because of his failure to lend money to Mylene's mother is unconvincing. Time and again, this Court has stated that it would take a certain 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 a grudge.[38] We note that the appellant failed to present credible evidence to indicate that Mylene and her family harbored any ill-motive that prompted her to falsely testify against him. It is farfetched for a young woman to charge a man she barely knew with so grave a crime as rape and then unnecessarily open herself to public scrutiny if she was not really subjected to the sexual indignity complained of.[39] Otherwise stated, the absence of any improper motive on Mylene's part to testify for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed at the time she testified and her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[40] | |||||