This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In fact, we have already ruled that for a conviction of rape, medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential.[32] Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible.[33] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| So that, the inconsistencies in the color of Galicia's clothes, his complexion, the brand of the motorcycle and his height are trivial and cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As aptly held, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of a witness while testifying and therefore, competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth.[21] | |||||
|
2010-03-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On this score alone, however, the credibility of the witness is not destroyed. It should be noted that AAA testified before the court two years after the execution of her Sinumpaang Salaysay. Moreover, AAA could have understood the question on the "alleged incident when you were raped"[50] to pertain to the entire incident prior to, during, and after the rape incident. At any rate, settled is the rule that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring to minor, trivial or inconsequential circumstances, even strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, because they eliminate doubts that such testimony had been coached or rehearsed. [51] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[51] The aforesaid inconsistency pointed out by the appellant did not erase the fact that the appellant had raped AAA. Verily, the issue of how long such sexual assault lasted was insignificant to the case of the prosecution. It cannot exonerate the appellant from the crime charged because the fact remains that he was AAA's ravisher. Rather than weakening the testimony of AAA, the aforesaid inconsistency serves to strengthen the veracity of the victim's story as it erases doubts that her testimony has been coached or rehearsed.[52] More so, rape, being a harrowing experience, is usually not fully remembered. Rather, the victim of such an atrocity is normally inclined to forget certain details surrounding the execrable event and sweep them into her dustbin of unwanted experiences and memories. What is important is her complete and vivid narration of the rape itself, which the trial court herein found to be truthful and credible.[53] Further, by way of clarification, during AAA's cross-examination, she denied that the sexual assault against her lasted for two hours. She simply stated that she could not anymore remember how long she was raped by the appellant.[54] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony.[29] In any event, inconsistencies between a witness' affidavit and testimony in open court do not impair credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.[30] The trial court gave credence to Edna's testimony that she was dragged into the woods, contrary to accused-appellants' insinuation that she merely followed. Accused-appellant Ariel Cabiluna merely cited a portion of the sworn statement which would favor his cause. However, | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Finally, appellant avers that the RTC gravely erred when it gave probative value to the Medical Certificate signed by Dr. Welhilmina Ang, despite her failure to testify in court. But even without this Certificate, complainant's testimony is already sufficient to convict appellant of rape.[49] To be sure, a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape.[50] It is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable element in rape. What is important is that the complainant's testimony about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible,[51] as in the instant case. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Noteworthy, though, is accused-appellants' conduct after discovering that criminal cases were filed against them. They hid from the authorities for several years, transferring abode for different periods of time. The rule is settled that flight of an accused is competent evidence of guilt, and when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[36] | |||||