This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-10-12 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| It has been held that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.[43] Since it was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment while testifying, the rule is that the trial court's assessment of their credibility is entitled to great respect,[44] and even finality, unless facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[45] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| We thus reiterate that the vaginal smear confirming the presence of spermatozoa merely corroborated Alfaro's testimony that Carmela was raped before she was killed. Indeed, the presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.[191] On the other hand, a negative result of DNA examination of the semen specimen could not have exonerated Webb of the crime charged as his identity as a principal in the rape-slay of Carmela was satisfactorily established by the totality of the evidence. A finding that the semen specimen did not match Webb's DNA does not necessarily negate his presence at the locus criminis. | |||||
|
2010-09-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| That appellant's alibi fails to persuade especially gains light from the fact that it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the house of AAA.[26] Recall that his house is only about 100 meters away from AAA's. | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We have consistently ruled that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies.[24] Thus, although there may be inconsistencies on the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[25] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant makes much about the alleged inconsistency in Shirley's police statement that the suspects hurriedly boarded a white-colored Alpha PU minica and fled to an unknown direction, and her testimony in open court that assailants left towards a gasoline station. Such perceived contradiction refers only to a minor matter that does not touch upon the elements of the crime committed. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.[34] | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the vicinity does not deter the commission of rape; there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[39] Lust is no respecter of time or place; rape can be committed in small, confined places like a one-room shack, and in the presence of other family members.[40] According to appellant, the behavior of prosecution witness Daisy Mendoza, who left to call her brother when she saw appellant sexually molesting her mother, was unnatural. Appellant insists that the natural reaction would have been for Daisy to immediately retaliate or wake | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that if the woman is under twelve (12) years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape but the absence of free consent is presumed when the woman is below 12 years old. The two 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.[28] Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[29] | |||||