This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Other than alibi and denial, accused-appellant presented the testimony of Alicia, a neighbor of AAA and accused-appellant, to prove that another person raped AAA. However, the record is clear that AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the culprit both at the barangay outpost minutes after the incident, and in open court. It is furthermore axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.[31] The trial court, which was able to carefully observe the testimony of Alicia, was not adequately convinced by her allegations. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is likewise axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.[23] As the trial court further observed, the defense witnesses were not eyewitnesses. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as provided in the Rules of Court.[24] AAA's mother and brothers were not present when the five rapes allegedly occurred, and therefore any testimony on their part as to whether or not the complained acts actually happened is hearsay. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| We cannot give credence to the accused-appellant's argument that KKK should have hit him to convey that she was resisting his sexual onslaught. Resistance is not an element of rape and the law does not impose upon the victim the burden to prove resistance[140] much more requires her to raise a specific kind thereof. | |||||
|
2014-01-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, the Court sees a need for some modification in line with recent jurisprudence. Thus, "[c]onsidering that the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, the award of P75,000.00 by the CA as civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00."[24] "The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place."[25] Also the award of P75,000.00 as moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00.[26] Moral damages are automatically granted to the rape victim without presentation of further proof other than the commission of the crime.[27] With respect to exemplary damages, we increase the same from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[28] Exemplary damages should be awarded by reason of the established presence of the qualifying circumstance of use of deadly weapon.[29] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is settled in 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.[18] Furthermore, it is axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth.[19] Lastly, in order for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We find that the testimony of AAA was indeed delivered in a clear and straightforward manner; thus, the same is worthy of the belief that was bestowed upon it by the trial court and later by the Court of Appeals. As borne out of the records of this case, AAA never wavered in her allegations of rape against appellant. Furthermore, conventional wisdom cemented in jurisprudence dictates that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor; and that no young girl would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was, in fact, raped.[16] | |||||