This case has been cited 17 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report of Dr. Punongbayan, the physician who examined AAA, that the victim could not have been subjected to sexual abuse. On the contrary, the said report stated that the "[g]enital findings do not exclude sexual abuse and may still be compatible with the patient's disclosure [of physical and sexual abuse]."[27] In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA's hymen was estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate AAA's vagina without causing hymenal injury.[28] This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen, since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.[29] It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.[30] Moreover, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape.[31] In the present case, the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.[32] If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused.[33] Moreover, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.[34] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[35] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[36] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to the credibility of the victim and her testimony. | |||||
|
2016-02-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.[18] When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[19] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[20] Considering that AAA was only four (4) years old when she was raped and was only five (5) years old when she took the witness stand, she could not have invented a horrible story. For her to fabricate the facts of rape and to charge the accused falsely of a crime is certainly beyond her mental capacity. | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Now, in comparison to AAA’s positive and categorical testimony and her positive identification of the appellant as her rapist, the appellant could only muster denial and alibi as his defenses. As this Court has oft pronounced, both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony, which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[39] In the case at bench, the appellant miserably failed to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime on 28 August 2002. As comprehensively discussed by the Court of Appeals: For one, no sufficient independent evidence was presented to support [the] appellant’s claim that he was in Cebu City on [28 August 2002], driving a public utility jeepney (PUJ) and that he went home only on Saturday afternoons, and that after he stopped driving sometime in 2002, he lived in his brother’s shop located in Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City. | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court likewise sustains the award of P50,000.00 moral damages by the lower courts. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of proof other than the fact of rape on the assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent.[41] In addition thereto, this Court finds it proper to also award P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P30,000.00 exemplary damages to AAA. Civil indemnity is mandatory when rape is found to have been committed.[42] Exemplary damages are also called for, by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[43] Furthermore, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.[44] | |||||
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Alibi and denial were the only defenses of Celedonio. Unless he can strongly support his claims that the items were "planted" and that it was physically impossible for him to be in De Guzman's house other than the mere averment that he was asleep at the time, his defenses cannot prevail over the strong circumstantial evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respect if not finality on appeal.[31] The rationale behind this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue.[32] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to appellant's defense of denial and alibi, it is an oft- repeated rule that positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[20] | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Here, the trial court found "AAA's" testimony to be credible as it was made in a simple and consistent manner. Notably, the CA agreed with the RTC on this point and saw no reason to overturn the same. And upon perusal of the records of this case, this Court likewise sees no reason to depart from the lower courts' assessment of "AAA's" testimony. Indeed, her statements pertaining to the identity of Prodenciado as her violator and the perverse acts he visited upon her were straightforward and categorical. Moreover, "[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[18] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| What is clear in this case is that the nine-year old victim, "AAA," candidly and spontaneously testified that she was raped by appellant. "Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, "AAA" could not have invented a horrible story."[20] "And although "AAA's" testimony was already convincing proof, by itself, of [appellant's] guilt, it was further corroborated by the testimony of [Alcover], who personally witnessed the rape. x x x"[21] | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[17] Moreover, AAA testified in a straightforward manner. | |||||
|
2014-02-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We are similarly unconvinced with appellant's defense of alibi. We have consistently held that alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.[26] Moreover, we have required that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[27] | |||||
|
2014-01-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that "AAA's" "uncertainty" on whether it was a match, rod or a cigarette stick that was inserted into her private parts, did not lessen her credibility. Such "uncertainty" is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into her private parts. This is the essence of rape by sexual assault. "[T]he gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault x x x is the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[25] In any event, "inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."[26] We also held in People v. Piosang[27] that | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we have, time and again, reiterated this Court's practice of giving great weight to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially when it is affirmed by the appellate court. In People v. Piosang,[15] we restated this principle in this manner:[F]indings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. As a general rule, on the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh the conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth. x x x. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Piosang,[19] we reiterated our frequent pronouncements regarding denial and alibi in this manner: [B]oth denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. Moreover, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We likewise rule as unmeritorious appellant's assertion that he could not have committed the felony attributed to him because, at the date of the alleged rape, AAA was not residing at the place where the alleged rape occurred. Jurisprudence tells us that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime, thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[21] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a horrible story. x x x[15] | |||||
|
2013-10-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The RTC found the testimony of "AAA" to be credible. She positively identified appellant as the malefactor and never wavered in her assertion that it was appellant who raped her. This finding was affirmed by the CA.[12] "Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the [CA], are binding upon this Court. As a general rule, on the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses [are] telling the truth. There is no cogent reason for us to depart from the general rule in this case."[13] | |||||