This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[24] Moreover, when the offended party is a young and immature girl, as in this case, where the victim was barely 9 years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[25] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In a determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of the complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[17] Here, the victim, in the painstaking and well-nigh degrading public trial, related her painful ordeal that she was raped by appellant. Her testimony was found by the trial court, which had the undisputed vantage in the evaluation and appreciation of testimonial evidence, to have been made in "a simple, straightforward and spontaneous manner."[18] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In a determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[13] This eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges.[14] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second. We have held time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the victim's credibility.[31] To every question asked, AAA gave straightforward and forthright answers which were credible and worthy of belief.[32] The linchpin of her testimony is that appellants raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellants make much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that they had carnal knowledge of AAA.[33] Thus, whether she was raped in the ground floor or second floor of the house,[34] or whether October 9, 2000 was a Saturday or a Monday,[35] or whether Dionisio was in xxx City or xxx Province on October 9, 2000,[36] are trivial details. An ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded AAA since minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience. Far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[37] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[45] Also, the rupture of the hymen or vaginal laceration is not necessary for rape to be consummated.[46] It is settled that a mere touching, no matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there was the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ.[47] | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court found Clarissa's testimony to be consistent,[56] believable,[57] and credible,[58] hence, is worthy of full faith and credit.[59] The CA reviewed Clarissa's testimony and found the same to be clear, sincere and could have only come from the mouth of a victim. During the grueling cross-examination conducted by three separate counsels of appellants, she remained steadfast in her testimony that she was raped. The credibility of complainant's testimony is a primordial consideration in rape cases for the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[60] When the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by rigorous cross-examination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit.[61] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| At the outset, we reiterate the well-constructed rule that in reviewing rape cases, the appellate court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (c) evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[37] Consequently, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical conclusion.[38] | |||||
|
2004-03-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| For a conviction of consummated rape to prosper, complete or full penetration of the victim's private part is not necessary because mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia consummates the crime.[26] What is fundamental, however, is that the entry or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum must be convincingly proved. | |||||