This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[51] The aforesaid inconsistency pointed out by the appellant did not erase the fact that the appellant had raped AAA. Verily, the issue of how long such sexual assault lasted was insignificant to the case of the prosecution. It cannot exonerate the appellant from the crime charged because the fact remains that he was AAA's ravisher. Rather than weakening the testimony of AAA, the aforesaid inconsistency serves to strengthen the veracity of the victim's story as it erases doubts that her testimony has been coached or rehearsed.[52] More so, rape, being a harrowing experience, is usually not fully remembered. Rather, the victim of such an atrocity is normally inclined to forget certain details surrounding the execrable event and sweep them into her dustbin of unwanted experiences and memories. What is important is her complete and vivid narration of the rape itself, which the trial court herein found to be truthful and credible.[53] Further, by way of clarification, during AAA's cross-examination, she denied that the sexual assault against her lasted for two hours. She simply stated that she could not anymore remember how long she was raped by the appellant.[54] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant's defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the rape victim's positive identification of her ravisher.[29] For alibi to prosper, he must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.[30] Appellant's claim that he was in his place of work in Pasig City at the time the crime was committed does not convince us. It was not physically impossible for him to return to his residence in Parañaque City and perpetrate the crime for his place of work is only a short distance away, as shown by the records. | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| self-serving statement. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that plain denial and alibi in a criminal trial cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[24] Prevailing over these lines of defense are categorical and consistent positive | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Finally, appellant relies on denial and alibi. Settled is the rule that such lines of defense in a criminal trial cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.[26] Further, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it to prosper, proving that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed will not be enough; the physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time must likewise be demonstrated.[27] In the instant case, it was not impossible for appellant to have been at the locus criminis at the time the rape was committed. In fact, having taken his lunch there, he even admitted that he was in that place at the time.[28] He merely posits the defense that he did not stay long in that house, but went on to transport passengers in his tricycle.[29] However, this alibi was neither proven nor substantiated. His defense must perforce fail. | |||||