This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-06-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We also take note of complainant's own testimony that during the entire two hours that she and the appellants had some drinks,[32] she made no outcry, no attempt to flee, and no act to attract sympathetic attention to her plight. This despite her claim that the appellants had forcibly abducted her. The testimony of Felicidad Antones, the storeowner who testified for the defense, revealed that she did not notice anything untoward during the time Lilibeth and the appellants had their drink. On the contrary, she noticed that Lilibeth drank by herself. We find it unusual and contrary to human experience that Lilibeth did not even entertain suspicion about the appellants' intentions if it were true, as she alleged, that the appellants forced her to drink. In fact, she thought that the threat was only a joke[33] and that the appellants were not at all serious simply because they were laughing as they threatened her.[34] For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experiences and observation of mankind can approve under the circumstances.[35] In one case, the Court held that it runs counter to human nature and experience for a person who just abducted a woman with the intention of raping her to first enjoy a few rounds of drink with several friends and openly expose his victim to public view. It is even more foolhardy that she be taken to a public place such as a beer-house where she could be seen with her abductor and thus increases the possibility of his being seen and apprehended for his criminal act.[36] If it were true that the appellants forcibly abducted her, her normal reaction would have been to resist and struggle against the abductors. Considering the circumstances of time and place when Lilibeth was supposedly abducted, there was every opportunity for her to seek help by simply shouting or even just walking away. Her failure to make an attempt to escape despite clear opportunities to do so undermines her credibility and renders her testimony unworthy of belief. For, although different women react differently in similar situations, it is unnatural for a would-be victim of rape not to make even a feeble attempt to escape when opportunities arose for doing so.[37] | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.[17] In the past we have not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was false.[18] All told, we are not morally convinced that accused-appellant raped private complainant. The prosecution was not able to establish accused-appellant's guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
Mendoza, J. |
||||
| believe.[23] While it is true that women react differently in similar situations, it is unnatural for an intended rape victim not to make even a feeble attempt to free herself despite opportunities to do so. Such demeanor is inconsistent with that of the ordinary Filipina whose instinct dictates that she summon every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor.[24] On the other hand, complainant's admission that accused-appellant gave her P150.00 after they had sex confirms the latter's claim that what they had engaged in on September 21, 1999 was consensual sexual intercourse. For if accused-appellant had warned her not to tell anyone | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[10] In reviewing rape cases, we are guided with three settled principles, namely: (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the same; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) 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 for the defense. By the very nature of the crime, judgments in rape cases turn on the credibility of the complainant as only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.[11] | |||||
|
2001-05-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To conclude, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to convict an accused. Although absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict one of a criminal charge, moral certainty is nonetheless required for conviction.[22] If there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he should be acquitted. In this case, we cannot rest easy in affirming the conviction of the trial court considering the doubts engendered in our minds. Complainant could have been raped the first time accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, when she was 13 years old. This, however, is not a prosecution for such rape. When she complained of having been raped in this case, she was already 30 or 31 years old, 17 or 18 years after she had been allegedly ravished for the first time by her father, the herein accused-appellant. During the said period of 17 or 18 years, neither complainant nor her parents denounced accused-appellant despite the fact that he continued to have sexual relation allegedly without the consent of complainant. During this period, four children were born to complainant and accused-appellant. Complainant and accused-appellant practically cohabited, choosing the baptismal sponsors for their children, and even inviting friends and relatives to the feasts. The relationship was known to neighbors. Thus, their relationship might be incestuous, but it was not by reason of force or intimidation. For their part, while in the beginning complainant's mother and sisters may have disapproved of the relationship, in the end, it would appear that subsequently they just turned a blind eye on the whole affair. Given these facts, we cannot say that on September 19, 1995 when accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with complainant, he committed rape. | |||||