This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anguac's claim that it is impossible for AAA's young siblings sleeping beside or near her not to be awakened while she was allegedly being rape is untenable. Lust, being a very powerful human urge, is, to borrow from People v. Bernabe, "no respecter of time and place."[12] Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest places and circumstances, and, as recent jurisprudence shows, by the most unlikely persons. The fact that AAA's siblings were not awakened at the time she was ravished is not improbable. We have observed in more than one occasion that rape could take place in the same room where other members of the family were sleeping;[13] that it is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several persons in it.[14] We have taken judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons.[15] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the simple but clear declarations of the private complainant, all that the appellant stresses in his defense is alibi. An alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated. If not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, alibi constitutes self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[34] For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. [35] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing testimony, there was nothing to prevent the trial court from properly concluding that Remilyn identified appellant through voice recognition. A person's voice is an acceptable means of identification where there is proof that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.[18] Appellant is no stranger to Remilyn for she had known him with much familiarity. Appellant is Remilyn's own brother. Thus, when appellant threatened Remilyn not to shout and move, or else he would kill her, the trial court logically inferred that Remilyn recognized appellant through his voice. | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[13] We further note that Ginalyn broke into tears while testifying. The crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the pain that the victim feels when asked to recount her traumatic experience.[14] | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving appellant's criminal accountability, his bare denial and alibi must perforce fail. It is a time-honored principle that the positive and categorical assertions of a witness generally prevail over bare denials. Affirmative testimony from a credible witness is stronger and more trustworthy than a bare self-serving testimony.[20] | |||||