This case has been cited 8 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. | |||||
|
2015-04-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| These notwithstanding, the COMELEC En Banc, in its Resolution No. 9922[62] dated December 23, 2014 (Resolution No. 9922), approved Program 1 of Smartmatic-TIM's PCOS Extended Warranty Proposal amounting to P300,000,000.00, exclusive of Value-Added Tax (VAT), through direct contracting, in view of the following reasons: First, time is of the essence in the preparation for the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections such that the Commission and the Bids and Awards Committee are constrained by the tight time schedule if public bidding are to be conducted in the refurbishment and/or repair of the machines considering all the procurement activities lined up.[63] | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Denial and alibi, which are self-serving negative evidence and easily fabricated, especially when uncorroborated, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of a credible witness.[25] Appellant's denial and uncorroborated defense of alibi cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimony of AAA that appellant raped her and committed acts of lasciviousness against her. As found by the trial court and the appellate court, AAA categorically identified appellant as the person who repeatedly molested her. AAA's testimony was replete with delicate details which she could not have concocted herself. She was consistent in her testimony and never wavered even during cross-examination. | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The awards of moral damages and civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 each is proper. "AAA" is also entitled to an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, all the damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[23] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly convicted appellant of statutory rape defined under Article 266-A[26] of the Revised Penal Code. "The elements of [statutory rape] are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented."[27] In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA." It was also established beyond reasonable doubt that "AAA" was below 12 years of age.[28] "The sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed upon accused-appellant by the [trial court], affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for the crime of statutory rape x x x is in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended."[29] However, appellant is not eligible for parole.[30] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The awards of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity are likewise proper. However, the award of exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[22] Also, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, this Court has never favorably looked upon the defense of denial, which constitutes self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.[30] To elucidate on the point, this Court, in People v. Espinosa,[31] held that: It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Denial cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The awards of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity are likewise proper. However, the award of exemplary damages must be increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[20] Also, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. | |||||