This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. Denial is an inherently weak defense vis-à-vis the positive and categorical assertion of prosecution witnesses. Like denial, alibi is not looked upon with favor by the trial court. Not only is it one of the weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication, it also cannot prevail over witnesses' positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. In any event, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the accused can prove his presence at another place at the time of its commission, it is likewise essential that he can show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus delicti.[12] In other words, he must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at or near the crime scene.[13] In this case, appellant was found to have been in the same house as Claudeth at the time the rape happened. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that Marietta is deranged lacks unbiased evidentiary support. In any event, it hardly has any bearing on the credibility of her own daughter. Nor would the failure of the prosecution to present Marietta at the witness stand adversely affect the outcome of the case. The prosecution is not bound to present any witness other than the victim herself, for as long as the testimony of the victim is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things,[15] it may be the basis for a conviction. It is the prerogative of the prosecution, not much unlike that of the defense, to determine which evidence to submit in support of its own case.[16] | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have consistently ruled that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[28] For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[29] Thus, when the testimonies of an accused are pitted against the positive testimony of the rape victim who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who remains consistent, the rape victim is regarded as a credible witness, as in this case. | |||||