This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony.[14] Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency.[15] While Cruz was indeed diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does not preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. As the CA observed accurately, AAA was raped in 1998 while the medical examination of Cruz was conducted in 2001. A good three years had already lapsed since AAA had been sexually abused. The diagnosis on Cruz in 2001 is, therefore, useless to disprove his sexual potency at the time of the rape incident. It merely corroborates his assertion that he is currently sexually impotent, and not that he has been so since 1995. Cruz was not able to adduce hard evidence to demonstrate his impotency prior to or on June 6, 1998 when the crime of rape was committed. Moreover, assuming arguendo that he was indeed impotent since 1995, it does not discount the possibility that his erection was cured by drugs like Viagra or Ciales. There was simply no proof of his alleged impotency on June 6, 1998 when the beastly act of rape was committed against AAA. | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well established is the rule that the credibility of the offended party's testimony is determinative of the outcome of rape cases for the reason that when an alleged victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[19] | |||||
|
2002-06-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not naive; hence, we disagree. The fact that complainant failed to make an outcry while being molested does not diminish her credibility for the failure of a victim to shout for help does not negate rape.[36] In fact, the absence of a struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial in the rape of a child below twelve (12) years of age because the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does not have a will of her own.[37] Neither can her failure to immediately report the incident to anyone be taken against her. It has long been established that the delay in the filing of a case does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim - experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to bear the ignominy and pain in silence, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats.[38] | |||||
|
2001-08-08 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant, however, urges that the cases at bar were filed against him allegedly because he admonished the complainant when he caught her red-handed stealing money from him. We find it unnatural for a 12-year old, naive, and innocent barrio lass to concoct a story of rape which would drag herself to a lifetime of shame just because she resented being reprimanded by the accused-appellant.[17] Her unwavering sincerity and candor while testifying in court convinces us that she was impelled by a desire to obtain justice for the dastardly act committed upon her person. Indeed, a girl of tender age like the complainant would not invent a story of defloration, let alone against her own relative, allow an examination of her private parts and face a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[18] | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| After a thorough review of the records, we fail to discern any material contradiction in the assertion of Nerissa that she was raped on separate occasions by accused-appellant. As noted by the trial court, Nerissa did not waver in her testimony even under the rigorous cross-examination by the defense counsel. Hence, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the time-honored legal principle that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial judge is in the best position to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The records will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.[17] | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| sufficient to sustain a conviction.[16] Thus, we find no reason to disagree with the trial court's assessment on the credibility of Sonia's testimony.[17] | |||||