This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger.[46] It is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience, and minor lapses in the testimony of a rape victim can be expected.[47] After all, rape is a painful experience which is sometimes not remembered in detail,[48] and the victim cannot be expected to immediately remember with accuracy every ugly detail of her harrowing experience, especially so when she might, in fact, have been trying not to remember the event.[49] Thus, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are to be expected in the rape victim's testimony. | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The healed lacerations in Mysan's hymen do not prove that appellant did not rape her.[14] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.[15] It is highly unlikely that a young girl like Mysan would fabricate a story that would destroy her reputation and her family life, and endure the ordeal of a trial, were it not to seek justice for herself.[16] No ulterior motive was offered to explain why Mysan would concoct a story charging appellant with the crime of rape.[17] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While, admittedly, there were contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' testimonies in open court and their sworn statements, discrepancies do not necessarily impair their credibility, for affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[66] for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer[67] or due to partial suggestions,[68] and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. | |||||