This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Here, AAA was not presented to testify in court because she was declared unfit to fully discharge the functions of a credible witness. The psychologist who examined her found that her answers reveal a low intellectual sphere, poor insight, and lack of capacity to deal with matters rationally. She could hardly even understand simple instructions.[24] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were not shown to have any malicious motive to fabricate a story, positively identified Nerio as the person seen alone with AAA in bed in the evening of February 26, 2003. AAA, who was only in a sando and panties, had her head on the shoulder of Nerio, who was naked and only had a blanket covering the lower portion of his body. Although Nerio denied this because he allegedly slept downstairs, while AAA slept with his mother and sisters upstairs, his testimony is inconsistent with that of his mother, who testified that AAA and Nerio actually slept in one (1) room, but she lay between the two. Further, Dr. Navidad found a fresh hymenal laceration on AAA’s genitals. He explained that it could not have been inflicted more than three (3) days from the date he examined AAA. There was, likewise, no showing that AAA met with another man during that three-day-period. Hence, the courts below did not err when they held that these pertinent circumstances proven during the trial form an unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion that Nerio had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent.[25] | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court iterated this rule in Trinidad v. People:[105] | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The combination of these circumstances "constitute[s] an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the [petitioner], to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."[116] | |||||