This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Delay of two years on the part of AAA in filing a case docs not necessarily result to a doubt in her credibility. It must be emphasized that victims of rape and sexual abuse, especially minors, react differently to the same set of circumstances. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress arc unpredictable; people react differently. Some may have a passive or reactive response or settle into insensibility.[45] | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The RTC unequivocally ruled that the testimony of AAA passed the test of credibility. The Court of Appeals thereafter upheld the trial court's assessment of AAA's testimony. After thoroughly reviewing the records of the present case, the Court similarly finds worthy of credence the testimony of AAA that the accused-appellant is guilty of physically and sexually abusing her. We, thus, find no reason to disturb, much less overturn, the trial court's reliance on the testimony of AAA. Verily, in People v. Leonardo,[17] the Court had occasion to reiterate that: It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. The appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Neither is the Court convinced that BBB would use and manipulate her own daughter AAA to wrongfully accuse Amistoso, her husband and AAA's father, of rape, just to cover-up her alleged affair with another man. It is unthinkable that a mother would sacrifice her daughter's honor to satisfy her grudge, knowing fully well that such an experience would certainly damage her daughter's psyche and mar her entire life. A mother would not subject her daughter to a public trial with its accompanying stigma on her as the victim of rape, if said charges were not true.[38] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, the credible, natural, and convincing testimony of the victim may be sufficient to convict the accused.[98] More so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician.[99] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| AAA's failure to immediately report to anyone what she had suffered in the hands of her stepfather does not vitiate the integrity of her claim. Apparently, the accused succeeded in instilling fear upon her young mind when he threatened to kill her and her siblings should she say a word about the incident. Thus, paralyzed by the fear that he would make good his threats, she remained silent and only broke it when he tried to repeat the sexual assault. The subsequent attack brought her silence to the breaking point and forced her to come out in the open to prevent and avoid further assaults. Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Neither does it necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.[27] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The accused calls the attention of the court that, at one point, the private complainant no longer noticed where the gun was. He, therefore, argues that there was no more threat to speak of at that moment. The Court is not persuaded. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in the commission of the rape be so great as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[14] What is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused.[15] The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in the crime of rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim in that if she resists or does not yield to the demands of the accused, his threat would be carried out.[16] | |||||
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Due to the nature of the commission of the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim may be sufficient to convict the accused, provided that such testimony is "credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things."[78] Thus, in People v. Leonardo,[79] we stated the evidentiary value of the testimony of the rape victim: Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.[80] | |||||