This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2005-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution[1] dated 27 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed outright Marilyn Bunao's petition for review in CA-G.R. SP UDK No. 4525 for having been belatedly filed, and its Resolution[2] dated 11 August 2003, which denied the motion for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the case of Joan, she even graphically demonstrated how her father ravished her when she re-enacted the deed showing how naked, she was made to sit on his likewise naked lap until he was able to ejaculate.[67] Private complainants' testimonies deserve full faith and credence.[68] In a similar case we held that "at such tender years, they were still unfamiliar with and naïve in the ways of the world that it is quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration. Their testimonies therefore cannot be disregarded."[69] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, it has been held repeatedly to the point of being doctrinal, an accused may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim if such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. [22] A credible witness and a credible testimony are the two essential elements in determining the weight of a particular testimony.[23] In the present case, complainant Digna Limio testified that one day in November 1998, her father removed her dress and panty, had her lie down, and then inserted his private part twice into her genitals. She felt pain but did not cry.[24] At the time of the incident, her mother was out selling vegetables while her younger sister, Myline, was at a neighbor's house.[25] After ravishing her, her father warned her not to report the incident to anyone, a warning that she obeyed.[26] She further testified that she believed in God and that God would get mad at her if she told a lie, so she decided she would only tell the truth before the court.[27] | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The crime was committed in the dwelling of the victim. Dwelling, although proven, could not aggravate the crime because said circumstance was not alleged in the Information in violation of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[72] However, insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the presence of this aggravating circumstance entitles the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00.[73] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, we are always guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility - if it is hard to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not draw strength merely from the weakness of that for the defense.[17] | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[22] A thorough review of the records of this case reveals that the testimony of the complainant withstands such test of credibility. | |||||