This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Likewise established is the attendant circumstance of force. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength and relation of the parties.[22] In this case, the CA properly determined that appellant used force against the victim, thus: Contrary to the suppositions of accused-appellant, records bear out that he indeed used force and intimidation on private complainant. It should be remembered that private complainant was pulled by accused-appellant towards the Chinese pagoda to satisfy his lust. Considering her weak mental state, her abduction in the cemetery cowered her into submission. While the intimidation on her could not hold true for others who are of normal events, she categorically testified that when she was pulled by accused-appellant, she thought that he would kill her. In her testimony, she consistently repeated that she was scared and afraid. Evidently, her mental condition was such that she would not resist sexual advances because she was so deprived of reason to make any effective resistance. Hence, by being so deprived, the act is made possible in the same way when there is active resistance but the same is overcome by force or threat, which is the essence of rape.[23] | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335[36] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[37] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[38] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[39] | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the attendant circumstance of force, this was likewise sufficiently established. Force or intimidation necessary in rape is relative, for it largely depends on the circumstances of the rape as well as the size, age, strength, and relation of the parties.[20] Notably, however, the act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission.[21] And the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[22] To appreciate force or intimidation, it is enough to show that such force or intimidation was sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Such was determined in this case. | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| These inconsistencies refer to minor and collateral matters. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of his testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[45] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as they erase the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[46] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving on its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[47] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We are not moved by appellants' uncorroborated defense of alibi. For the defense to prosper, the requirements of time and place (or distance) must be strictly met; it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission.[21] Appellant Igdoy himself testified that the distance between his residence at Hibucawon, Jaro, Leyte and Kananga, Leyte, the scene of the crime, can be negotiated by public transport within two and a half hours.[22] Appellant Albarido admitted that he was at his house during the commission of the crime, which is only more than three (3) kilometers away from Sto. Domingo, Kananga, Leyte where it happened.[23] These distances, as this Court has ruled in previous cases,[24] are not enough to prove that appellant could not have been at the crime scene when it was committed. Parenthetically, appellants' alibis are worthless in the face of their positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.[25] | |||||