This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Partially. That is the basis of our question. A No, sir.[34] Courts give full weight and credence to testimonies of child-victims of rape.[35] It is highly improbable that a ten-year old girl like Christine would impute to the live-in partner of her own mother a crime as serious as rape and undergo the humiliation of a public trial, if what she asserts is not true.[36] Appellant did not ascribe any credible motive to explain why a girl of tender age like Christine would concoct a story accusing him of rape.[37] | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The healed lacerations in Mysan's hymen do not prove that appellant did not rape her.[14] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[15] It is highly unlikely that a young girl like Mysan would fabricate a story that would destroy her reputation and her family life, and endure the ordeal of a trial, were it not to seek justice for herself.[16] No ulterior motive was offered to explain why Mysan would concoct a story charging appellant with the crime of rape.[17] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "Q: And your finding are all contained in Exhs. C and D, Provisional Medico-Legal Report and Final Medico Legal Report? "A: Yes, sir."[8] Mere denial without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him. The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. It is not enough, in order that alibi might prosper, to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[9] In this case, appellant himself has admitted being just around the neighborhood at the time. | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q - And what did you feel when your father inserted his penis for the second time? A - It was painful, sir.[31] Appellant failed to rebut the clear and positive testimony of Rhoda. No woman, especially one of tender age like Rhoda, would undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify on the details of her ordeal, unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished.[32] Considering that Rhoda was not shown to have been ill-motivated in imputing such a grave offense against her own father, we find no reason to disbelieve her.[33] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disturb the trial court findings that the victim's testimony was credible, candid and straightforward. The defense's imputation of ill-motive was likewise correctly disregarded for lack of evidence to support it. It is highly inconceivable that a young barrio lass, inexperienced with the ways of the world, would fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her family's honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[9] We reiterate the truism that 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.[10] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of damages, we note that the trial court only awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In rape cases, a separate award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be given without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[22] The same is awarded to indemnify the young victim for the appalling and outrageous sexual violence which will most certainly haunt her for the rest of her life.[23] | |||||
|
2003-02-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years[13] as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion.[14] Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips.[15] In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain.[16] As explained in People v. Rodito Dagamos:[17] | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| place where accused-appellant claimed to have been staying at the time of the commission of the crime was so near the crime scene that it was not physically impossible for him to have been present at the place of the crime at the time of its commission.[13] Accused-appellant's second assignment of error lacks merit. The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative can only be raised where there is a concurrence of the requisites of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression and | |||||