This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court notes, however, that "AAA" was able to satisfactorily explain why she kept silent about the rapes for years and why, even if she had the chance, she did not run away or shout for help. She testified, viz: Q: x x x [A]ccording to you, appearing on page 5 of the transcript, [o]n August 13, 2000[,] allegedly the accused in this case raped you at 11:00 in the morning? A: Yes, sir. Q: Can you still recall where you proceeded after 11:00 in the morning of that date? A: Yes, sir. I just remained there. Q: You did not go anywhere? A: [No], sir. Q: As a matter of fact, you did not leave the house because, according to you, at 11:30[,] you were again raped, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: There is a difference of 30 minutes. Do you want to impress to this Honorable Court that after the first incident you just stayed there and waited for the other incident to occur? A: No, sir, because he did not allow us to proceed to my lola's house, sir. Q: You made mention of the word "us[.]" When you mentioned the word "us[,]" you were with somebody then and you were not alone? A: Yes, sir. Q: As a matter of fact, on that very date of August 13, 2000[,] you were with a person name[d] [BBB]? A: Yes, sir. Q: And this [BBB] is your mother A: Yes, sir.[25] x x x x Q: Do you want to impress before this Honorable Court that the incident occurred in 1993 and you k[ept] quiet about [it] until the year 2000? A: Because the accused kept on telling me that if I report the matter he would kill me and my mother, sir. Q: Do you want to impress before this Honorable Court that in the year 2000 the accused did not threaten you anymore because you already went to the police authorities and you were not afraid anymore? A: He warned me not to report the incident, sir. Q: But you still reported the same? A: Yes, sir.[26] x x x x Q: x x x [Y]ou will agree with me when I say that you had all the time to run away from the hut? x x x x A: I was nervous at that time, sir. x x x x I was afraid to run, sir.[27] x x x x Q: The only reason why[,] according to you[,] you did not shout in your answer[,] and I quote [from page] 10, [of the February 21, 2002 transcript], "even [if I] shout[,] nobody can hear me," am I correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: Nobody can hear you considering the fact that your mother was there? A: My mother can hear me, sir, but [she] cannot do anything.[28] x x x x Q: Ms. Witness, x x x you said that when you were raped by your father your mother was around and you said you did not ask for help because your mother could not do anything, what do you mean by that? A: Because (referring to the accused) he was armed with [a] bolo (itak), sir. Q: Are you afraid of itak? A: I am afraid "baka patayin po ako[,"] sir.[29] Clearly, "AAA" did not reveal to anyone what Prodenciado was doing to her out of fear that he might make good his threats to kill her and her family. Indeed, in one case, we have recognized that "[t]he fear of [the victim] that her father would kill her and the other members of her family, should she report the incident to her mother or the police, is not so unbelievable nor is it contrary to human experience."[30] Besides, "the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not detract from the fact that rape was committed."[31] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As against the prosecution's strong case against the accused-appellant, the latter merely denied the accusation against him. No one even testified to corroborate his defense. Time and again, the Court has ruled that "a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him."[32] In this case, the accused-appellant even failed to present any possible ground for AAA and her mother to falsely testify against him. "[A]bsent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit."[33] "Between the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails."[34] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As aptly ruled by the lower courts, the prosecution was able to establish Baraga's guilt for two (2) counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the RPC. After a thorough examination of AAA's testimony, the Court finds that it is spontaneous, clear, candid, and free from serious contradictions. AAA testified that Baraga, on August 8 and 15, 2007, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her, and, thus, being AAA's father, is presumed to have employed force and/or intimidation.[5] AAA was only 12 years old at the time when Baraga consummated his bestial acts. The Court maintains that testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence.[6] | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the conviction of the accused rests heavily on the credibility of the victim. Hence, the strict mandate that all courts must examine thoroughly the testimony of the offended party. While the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, courts are, nonetheless, duty-bound to establish that their reliance on the victim's testimony is justified. Courts must ensure that the testimony is credible, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. If the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[131] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that there is an attempt when the offender commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In People v. Publico,[29] we ruled that when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise, the crime committed is merely acts of lasciviousness. | |||||