This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Its demands not having been satisfied, PGIC proceeded to file its Complaint[16] for Sum of Money before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 181900.[17] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The terms "common-law husband" and "step-father" have different legal connotations. For appellant to be a step-father to "AAA," he must be legally married to "AAA's" mother.[26] | |||||
|
2013-02-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals when it found that the records show that AAA made attempts to resist the advances of appellant. The records would reveal that she tried to kick and stave appellant's attack. However, appellant's strength proved to be too much for AAA to fend off. We note that at the time of the occurrence of the rape, AAA was only 12 years of age. Appellant in contrast was a grown man of twenty-five.[24] As we have ruled in People v. Salazar[25]: In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case -- motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The grounds now being raised by Colorado to justify his exoneration delve mainly on the alleged absence of the crime's third element. He denies AAA's claim that he had ravished her, raising the defense of alibi and the alleged doubt and suspicion that should be ascribed to AAA's accusations. On this matter, settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. We have repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. The rule finds even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA. Thus, except for compelling reasons, we are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[13] | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The minority of AAA was sufficiently alleged in the information that stated that she was "a 13-year-old girl." The Prosecution established that her age when the rape was committed on May 12, 2000 was thirteen years and two months by presenting her birth certificate revealing her date of birth as March 15, 1987.[13] As to her relationship with Arcillas, the information averred that he was "then the step-father of AAA." It turned out, however, that he was not her stepfather, being only the common-law husband of BBB. The RTC itself found that he and BBB were only "live-in partners." In addition, AAA's birth certificate disclosed that her father was CCC, who had been married to BBB,[14] who was widowed upon the death of CCC in 1996. No evidence was adduced to establish that BBB and Arcilla legally married after CCC's death.[15] | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The RTC and the CA correctly rejected the subsequent recantations of Alviar and Pagcaliwagan since these were made a year after their testimonies in court.[8] Also, Alviar failed to offer any explanation for her change of mind,[9] while Pagcaliwagan admitted that he recanted because the appellant returned the money he paid.[10] We have often stressed that recantations are frowned upon since a recantation is exceedingly unreliable; it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[11] | |||||
|
2011-08-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Orillosa,[66] this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice.[67] Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old.[68] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| That said, the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no woman, especially a young one, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and, thereafter, subject herself to a public trial, if she had not been motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[21] | |||||