This case has been cited 11 times or more.
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "It would be preposterous to assume that the victim, whose intelligence quotient is admittedly low, could have concocted the grave charge of rape, or that she and her mother would go into the trouble of having her medically examined, going to court and advertising to the whole world she had been raped, if the charge was merely invented." We reject appellant's contention that Janice was coached by her mother and witness Rolando Ayad. It bears stressing that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."[39] In fact, no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[40] Also, it is highly unnatural for a mother, virtuous or not, to use her own daughter as "an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her to embarrassment and even stigma."[41] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the private complainant, accused-appellant merely raised alibi as his defense. However, such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated.[25] Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[26] | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Owing to the severity of the penalty imposed, the Court, in reviewing this case must be guided by the following principles: a.) an accusation for rape can be made with facility. While the commission of the crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove that he did not commit the crime; b.) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are normally involved, the testimony of the complainant must be always be scrutinized with extreme caution; and c.) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[10] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[11] | |||||
|
2001-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In prosecutions for rape, the Court is always guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent; (b) in view of the nature of the crime which usually involves only two persons, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[13] | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q Why? How old are you when you when you were first abused by your father? A Eight (8) years old ma'am?[4] The foregoing open court declarations of Michelle sufficiently prove the consummation of the sexual act. It has been ruled that when a victim, more so if she is minor, says that she was raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to prove the rape.[5] An intimidated young barrio girl is almost always afraid to resist the evil done to her. The employment of force and intimidation in rape need not be so great or of such character as not to be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. In this case, there is enough showing that accused-appellant succeeded in instilling fear in Michelle's mind.[6] Thus: Court: | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As stated, the trial court arrived at its finding of guilt after a careful assessment of the evidence presented, foremost of which was the testimony of the victim in open court, where the trial judge was able to personally evaluate her manner of testifying, and from there reach a studied opinion as to her credibility. As a rule, we do not disturb the findings by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the trial court is in a better position to pass upon the same.[45] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We therefore see no cogent reason to doubt the complainant's credibility. It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victims, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit.[50] A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[51] Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate courts which usually rely only on the cold pages of the mute records of the case.[52] | |||||
|
2001-02-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, as a rule appellate courts will not disturb the findings by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the trial court is in a better position to pass upon the same. As succinctly explained in the case of People vs. Atop,[19] the trial court has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" --- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[20] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| If the accused was positively identified by the victim himself who harbored no ill motive against the former, the defense of alibi must fail.[19] No ill motive can be attributed to the prosecution witnesses. In any event, proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when there is positive identification.[20] Motive assumes significance only when there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime might be.[21] Bare denial is a negative declaration, which deserves no consideration and cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of the victim, which is corroborated by evidence.[22] It cannot survive positive identification by the victim. Affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative one, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[23] Denial is inherently weak, can easily be fabricated and, to warrant acquittal, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court has a valuable advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, their "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath," all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[24] | |||||