This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Alipio,[18] the Court rebuked appellant therein for raising a similar argument. The Court went on to state that it is not fair to judge a mentally-retarded person, one who does not have a good grasp of information and who lacks the capacity to make a mental calculation of the events unfolding before her eyes, according to what is natural or unnatural for normal persons.[19] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that while AAA's testimony had inconsistencies, these inconsistencies do not at all affect her credibility. Inconsistencies are to be expected when a person is recounting a traumatic experience.[15] Rape, a traumatic experience, is usually not remembered in detail.[16] This observation is more pronounced in the case of minors such as AAA who was merely ten years old at the time she testified. For this reason, we held in People of the Philippines v. Domingo Sta. Ana y Tupig that it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by norms of behavior expected from adults.[17] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| That the act was carried out in a public place does not make it unbelievable. The evil in man has no conscience--the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[6] There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[7] The commission of rape is not hindered by time or place as in fact it can be committed even in the most public of places.[8] Clearly, the argument of accused-appellant that there could be no rape as the place was in full view of the public does not have a legal leg to stand on. The fact that the area was in the public eye would not prevent a potential rapist from carrying out his criminal intent. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant seeks to destroy AAA's credibility by assailing her testimony for lack of details as to how rape was committed. In People v. Alipio,[30] the Court ruled that rape is a harrowing experience, the exact details of which are usually not remembered. Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather than weaken the credibility of the witness, for they show that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed.[31] AAA recounted in simple yet very clear terms the different instances of how she was ravished by appellant. Through her account, the elements of the crime of qualified rape were sufficiently established. | |||||