This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2001-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| True, Shirley Abordo's testimony was spattered with inconsistencies bordering at times on incoherence. As she herself admitted, her narration was merely derived from the accounts of the other prosecution witnesses and not from her own perception of the events. This constitutes hearsay, which we then reject. Be that as it may, these alleged inconsistencies are immaterial and irrelevant as they do not alter the determination of the Court that murder was committed and accused-appellant was the assailant. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[11] | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| All other considerations and alleged factual discrepancies fade in the light of this averment. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[10] Thus, any inconsistency with regard to private complainant Lea's position relative to accused-appellant Balmoja is inconsequential as the material fact that the latter inserted his penis into her vagina has been established. | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Although the extent of penile penetration was not expounded upon, private complainant's cry of pain and entreaty that accused-appellant cease from his actions[11]11 Id., p. 24.11 show that a certain degree of penetration was achieved sufficient to conclude that consummated rape was committed. This was confirmed by the medico-legal report which declared that private complainant's hymen had fresh bleeding lacerations at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 8 o'clock positions that could have been inflicted within twenty-four (24) hours as of the time of the examination.[12] | |||||
|
2001-06-29 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| There is no better test to measure the value of a witness' testimony than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[17] In.People v. Antonio,[18] we held that the testimony of a fourteen-year old rape victim impressed as it is with youth and immaturity, bears the badges of truth and sincerity. A fourteen-year old rape victim comes forward, allows the examination of her private parts and undergoes a public trial because of a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[19] | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.[14] In the instant case, we find the alleged inconsistencies relied upon by appellant in his bid for acquittal, immaterial and irrelevant. The linchpin of complainant's testimony is that appellant raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellant makes much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Thus, whether she was asleep when appellant approached her or awake when appellant called her, prior to the ravishment, are trivial details. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction.[15] Moreover, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes or variations in their declarations, considering the treachery of human memory. Here, we find that an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded the 12-year old rape victim. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience.[16] Thus, far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[17] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's arguments boil down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. The trial court has pointed out in its decision that In-In was "categorical, straightforward, credible, convincing, natural and spontaneous"[9] in narrating her defloration in the hands of accused-appellant. The settled rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to respect, since it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[10] A witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[11] | |||||