This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The fact that AAA was able to answer in a straightforward manner during her testimony cannot be used against her. The capacity of a mental retardate to stand as a witness in court has already been settled by this Court. In People v. Castillo,[22] we said: It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it is settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Emphasis must be given to the fact that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it has been jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.[51] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The credible testimony of AAA corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration conclusively established the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[108] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to accused's theory that the private complainant imputed such a crime on him because he is the president of a rival farmer's association, we agree with the RTC in finding such too specious to be believed.[26] No woman, especially one who is married and was two months pregnant at the time, would conconct a tale that would tarnish her reputation, bring humiliation and disgrace to herself and her family, and submit herself to the rigors, shame, and stigma attendant to the prosecution of rape, unless she is motivated by her quest to seek justice for the crime committed against her.[27] The identification of the accused by the private complainant, is thus, entitled to full faith and credit as there appears no evidence to show that she was moved by improper motive to falsely testify against him.[28] | |||||