This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, accused's bare denial deserves scant or no consideration at all. The Court has consistently ruled that "denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence, which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[54] In this case, AAA positively identified her father as the one who raped her on three separate occasions. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical finding that she was no longer a virgin at barely 16 years of age. A rape victim's testimony against her father deserves greater weight since Filipino culture dictates children revere and respect their elders. This trait is deep-rooted in Filipino children and families and is even acknowledged by law. It is thus improbable, if not completely absurd, that a daughter would imprudently invent a story of rape against her father in utter disregard of the unimaginable trauma and social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. A teenage unmarried girl does not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody, much less her own father, if she does not speak the truth.[55] | |||||