This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Pagdayawon,[16] the Court held that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, which the Constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children's duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized by law. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. | |||||
|
2002-04-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| What is decisive in a rape charge is the complainant's positive identification of the accused as a malefactor.[27] When the complainant in a rape case testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed. So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.[28] It is highly inconceivable that a young girl of eleven years would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[29] Certainly the victim would not make public the offense, undergo the humiliation of a public trial if she had not in fact been raped.[30] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| After reviewing the records of this case, we find credible Analyn's testimony in court. The trial court observed that initially, Analyn could not utter a word when she was placed on the witness stand. The Department of Social Welfare and Development was even given added time for therapy to stabilize her condition.[25] When she was ready to testify, she did so in a straightforward manner. She said she knew appellant and pointed to him as the person who took her to a grassy area, removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina, at which time she felt pain in her private part. When the defense counsel on cross-examination told her if it was appellant's finger which was inserted into her vagina, she answered she was sure that it was appellant's penis that was inserted.[26] In this instance, young as Analyn was, we find her version of the incident believable. The testimony of a rape victim of tender age deserves full credit, especially where the facts point to her having been a victim of sexual assault.[27] | |||||