Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HILARIO ESCOTON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181473 2013-11-11	PEOPLE v. DONEY GADUYON Y TAPISPISAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
We are not persuaded. Our review of the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that these inconsistencies refer to inconsequential matters "that [do] not bear upon the elements of the crime of rape. The decisive factor in the prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts indispensable to the guilt or innocence of the appellant for the crime charged. As the inconsistencies alleged by the appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape, they cannot be used as [grounds] for his acquittal."[73]
	GR No. 194259 2011-03-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY ALVERIO VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, in that same case, this Court held that "in cases involving the prosecution for forcible rape x x x corroboration of the victim's testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for rape where the victim's testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."[28] As such, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses,[29] the reason being that the trial court has the "unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination."[30] More importantly, courts generally give full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially one who is only a minor.[31]
	GR No. 183829 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LASANAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
At all events, a medical examination is not indispensable to successful prosecution of rape.[22] AAA's testimony on direct examination, standing alone, proves appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, appellant did not cross examine her,[23] sufficient time and opportunity afforded him notwithstanding, which thus prompted the trial court to declare him to have waived his right to cross-examine.[24]
	GR No. 189092 2010-08-19	PEOPLE v. MELVIN LOLOS MENDOZA, J.
With respect to the inconsistency on the number of occupants inside the house, the matter is inconsequential as it does not bear upon the elements of the crime of rape.The decisive factor in the prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts indispensable to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged.[10] Thus, the cited inconsistency does not vitiate the integrity of the prosecution evidence.
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
As this Court has previously ruled, accused-appellant can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim. Hence, even if the medical findings are disregarded, in the end, the prosecution has successfully proved the case of rape against accused-appellant on the basis of AAA's testimony.[17]