This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court has ruled that since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[20] Moreover, the Court considers AAA's alleged inconsistency in testifying, with respect to the place where the first and third rapes were committed, as a minor inconsistency which should generally be given liberal appreciation considering that the place of the commission of the crime in rape cases is alter all not an essential element thereof. What is decisive is that accused-appellant's commission of the crime charged has been sufficiently proved.[21] The alleged disparity in the victim's testimony may also be attributed to the feet that, during her direct examination, AAA was first questioned regarding her third rape in 2002, while questions with respect to her first rape in 2000 were the last to be asked. In any case, Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape.[22] Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed.[23] These discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the elements of the crime, cannot, thus, be considered a ground for acquittal.[24] In this case, the alleged inconsistency in AAA's testimony regarding the exact place of the commission of rape does not make her otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony, on material points, less worthy of belief. | |||||
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Anent the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of AAA with respect to the reason why she ran away from their house after the last incident of rape, suffice it to state that the same is not fatal to the prosecution's cause. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected.[20] It bears stressing that the inconsistency mentioned by Biala pertained to a trivial and non-consequential matter that was merely caused by the confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency regarding her reason for leaving their house was not even a matter relating to her ordeal. Besides, the human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions that accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[21] | |||||
|
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 | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[24] The inconsistencies mentioned by Pareja are trivial and non-consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter pertaining to AAA's ordeal.[25] The date and time of the commission of the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words, the "date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant's narration practically hinge on the date of the commission of the crime."[26] Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[27] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we affirm the award to AAA of P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, and P30,000.00 exemplary damages, in line with jurisprudence.[30] In addition, we expressly impose an interest of 6% per annum on the aggregate amount of damages awarded from finality of this judgment until full payment of the same. | |||||