This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Delay in reporting a rape to the police authorities does not negate its occurrence nor does it affect the credibility of the victim. In the face of constant threats of violence and death, not just on the victim but extending to her kin, a victim may be excused for tarrying in reporting her ravishment.[22] In this case, AAA consistently claims that on all occasions of the rape, Ramos threatened her with death and eviction from home. Hence, apart from the embarrassment and shame that, if unjustifiably, goes with being raped, it is quite understandable for a minor to be hesitant or disinclined to come out in public and relate a painful and horrible experience of sexual violation.[23] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes with dismay that petitioner has adopted two conflicting theories in his defense. In fact, all of petitioner's arguments before this Court are being raised for the first time on appeal. Under the proceedings in the RTC and the CA, petitioner admitted having incurred a cash shortage but claimed his criminal liability was extinguished by his payment of the same.[43] Before this Court, however, petitioner argues that he is not criminally liable because the PNB confirmed the authenticity of the pertinent documents, and adds that his payment of the shortage was involuntary and without his consent. Petitioner's reliance on these diametrically opposed defenses renders his present arguments all the more unbelievable and unavailing. This cannot be countenanced, as to do so would make a mockery of established precepts in criminal jurisprudence.[44] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| For the accused to be held guilty of consummated rape, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) there has been carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused; (2) the accused achieved the act through force or intimidation upon the victim because the latter was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.[16] Considering that carnal knowledge is the central element in the crime of rape, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[17] Carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence that rape has been committed and that the accused was the perpetrator thereof.[18] | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also unavailing is appellant's argument that the lack of medical certificate and of the testimony of the examining physician as regards AAA's physical injuries should be taken against the prosecution. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[30] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[31] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[32] It is in the nature of the crime of rape that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing.[33] In the present case, the prosecution, through the testimony of AAA, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own daughter against her will. Said testimony is worthy of credence and is enough to sustain his conviction. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[48] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[49] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[50] In the instant case, the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of her stepdaughter against her will and consent. We find her testimony to be worthy of credence, which by itself, is sufficient to convict accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Lastly, Genelita's failure to recount her ordeal to her mother is not an indication of false accusation. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if the delay is satisfactorily explained.[39] In the present cases, the records show that appellant had instilled fear upon Genelita's young mind during the sexual assaults. He threatened to kill her and her family if she would report the incidents to anyone.[40] She was continuously seized by fear at the mere presence of appellant who was always nearby.[41] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[16] The record shows that, other than his self-serving assertions, the appellant had nothing to support his claim. No love letter, memento, or picture was presented to prove that such romantic relationship existed. His story that the night before the incident, he and Maricel slept in the same bed and kissed each other, is highly incredible. There is no other indication that Maricel was of ill repute or loose morals so as to readily consent to have intimate relations with him. | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We do not consider the delay fatal. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if the delay is satisfactorily explained.[39] | |||||