This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2007-09-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63] | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63] | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63] | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Apropos is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60] . . . [A] daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. . . . That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[61] (Underscoring supplied) Appellant's argument that the acts complained of could not have been committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the victim,[62] the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to deter the commission of rape.[63] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In his quest to exculpate himself from the legal assumption of criminal liability for the missing funds, he insisted that: 1) the sacks of rice were less than that declared in the receipts when they were delivered to him; 2) he sold the rice at the older and lower prices, as he was not informed of changes in the prices of the rice; and 3) the empty sacks of rice were in the possession of the delivery men. However, petitioner merely settled for his bare uncorroborated testimony during the trial before the Sandiganbayan. He never bothered to adduce other pieces of evidence to fortify his defenses. Petitioner did not produce the delivery men whom he claims had in their possession the empty sacks or any acknowledgement receipt for said bags. Moreover, petitioner did not bring forward his co-workers to attest to and confirm the practice of, and substantiate petitioner's story of receiving sacks of rice without weighing them and that the bags received weighed less than that reflected in the receipt. The established rule is that "[d]enials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence."[21] The court a quo is correct in holding that as compared to credible witnesses like the COA auditors who testified on affirmative matters, the self-serving negative testimony of accused petitioner Wa-acon has no substantial weight or credit.[22] | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Between the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim, on one hand, and appellant's bare denial, on the other, the former generally prevails. Universally accepted is the rule that a denial is self-serving and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.[14] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We give credence to Belinda's consistent, trustworthy and candid testimony. It is sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction.[32] Since her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused-appellant may be convicted on the basis thereof.[33] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
Per Curiam |
||||
| It is hornbook doctrine that the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim-daughter, identifying her own father as the one who sexually attacked her, prevails over his bare denial.[23] No daughter will charge a father, especially a good father, | |||||