This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Here, AAA was on her way to her parents' house when appellants, her neighbors since childhood, appeared and held her hands. She struggled and shouted but appellant Allain covered her mouth with a handkerchief to prevent her from shouting, while appellant Vergel punched her in the stomach which caused her to lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she felt pain all over her body and her vagina. She found her bra, bloodied parity and maong pants beside her. She went back to her employers' house and told them that appellants raped her. AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Jabat's declaration that the lacerations in AAA's perineum and hymen were due to the insertion of a foreign object or the male organ and the presence of spermatozoa signified recent sexual intercourse. It is well settled that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisites of carnal knowledge.[45] The lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[46] | |||||
|
2014-02-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Anent the inconsistent statements made by AAA in her testimony which were pointed out by appellant, we agree with the assessment made by the Court of Appeals that these are but minor discrepancies that do little to affect the central issue of rape which is involved in this case. Instead of diminishing AAA's credibility, such variance on minor details has the net effect of bolstering the truthfulness of AAA's accusations. We have constantly declared that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony.[16] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, it is also worthy to note that, when AAA relived her ordeal at the witness stand, she broke down in tears more than once. This only serves to bolster her credibility considering that we have consistently held that the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the pain that the victim feels when asked to recount her traumatic experience.[25] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have repeated the legal doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it must be proved that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[28] Furthermore, we have also established in jurisprudence that, in order for a corroboration of an alibi to be considered credible, it must necessarily come from disinterested witnesses.[29] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The quoted transcript would show that when AAA testified and, thus, was constrained to recount the torment she suffered at the hands of her own father, she broke down in tears in more than one instance. This can only serve to strengthen her testimony as we have indicated in past jurisprudence that the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the pain that the victim feels when asked to recount her traumatic experience.[15] It is also worth noting that appellant's counsel did not even bother to cross-examine AAA after her direct examination by the prosecutor. | |||||
|
2013-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this case, we uphold the legal doctrine which states that it is unnatural for a parent, more so for a mother, to use her offspring as an engine of malice especially if it will subject her child to humiliation, disgrace and even stigma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her child's defilement.[15] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q While you and the accused were inside the house, what happened? A He undressed me. Q In what part of the house the accused undressed you? Do you have a room? A There was a room. Q Were you undressed inside the room of that house? A Yes, sir. Q How about your younger brother, where was he at that time? A My younger brother cried. Q Where was he, inside or outside the bedroom? A Outside the bedroom. Q Was the accused armed at that time he undressed you? A Yes, sir. Q What kind of instrument? A A bolo. COURT Q What did he do with that bolo? A When I was already nude, he placed the bolo beside me. Q You told the court that you were told by the accused to undress yourself. Were you able to undress yourself? A He was the one [who] undressed me. Q Did he succeed in undressing you? A Yes, sir. Q Completely? A My shorts and my panty. Q After you were undressed by him, what did the accused do? A He unzipped his pants and put out his male organ. Q Did he tell you anything when he undressed you? A Yes, your Honor. Q What did he tell you? A He told me not to reveal this matter, because if I will reveal this to anybody, he is going to kill me. [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q When the accused was already undressed and allow his penis to go out, what did he do next? A He held my breast and inserted his penis. COURT Q Can you tell us what was your position whether sitting, standing or what? A I was made to lie down. [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q You want to impress the court… the Honorable Court when the accused inserted his male organ or penis, you were lying down? A Yes, sir. COURT Q On bed or on the floor? A On the floor. Q Did you cry when the accused inserted his penis in your vagina? A Yes, sir. Q Did you tell anything to the accused before he inserted his penis in your vagina? A Yes, sir. Q What did you tell him? A I told him it is painful. COURT Q You did not resist? A I did not resist because he is very strong. Q Where was the bolo at the time? A Beside me. x x x x [PROSECUTOR] ALFORTE Q Was it unsheathed from the scabbard? A [It] was unsheathed from the scabbard.[12] It is a settled doctrine in our jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[13] It is likewise elementary that the issue of credibility of witnesses is resolved primarily by the trial court since it is in a better position to decide the same after having heard the witnesses and observed their conduct, deportment and manner of testifying; accordingly, the findings of the trial court are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14] In other words, as we have repeatedly declared in the past, the trial judge's evaluation, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the lower courts but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[15] Unfortunately, appellant failed to discharge this burden. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We also stated in People v. Nebria[35] that the award of exemplary damages in rape cases is proper in order to protect the young from sexual exploitation and abuse. Thus, we further award P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in light of current jurisprudence.[36] | |||||