![]() Moreover, appellant’s alibi that he was on a fishing trip with his friends is highly suspect. Thus, although it would take five (5) hours to travel from Layagon to Sitio Eviota, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have returned to Sitio Eviota on Jand raped the victim. After fishing, they returned to their nipa hut, also in Layagon, to rest. For one, appellant himself testified that he and his friends merely fished for one to three hours each day. The trial court correctly disregarded appellant’s alibi. ID ID CREDIBILITY ALIBI REQUISITE FOR DEFENSE TO PROSPER CASE AT BAR. All told, we are convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant raped complainant Edelyn Giducos.ĥ. We cannot see how complainant’s family could go to such great lengths and subject their daughter to humiliation and public scandal merely to get even with appellant for ruining their fishing net. He was charged with sexually molesting fifteen-year old Edelyn Giducos. Appellant is not accused of committing a petty crime. Appellant also claims that complainant’s family concocted the rape charge for he accidentally destroyed the fishing net he borrowed from complainant’s father and he refused to pay for the damage. In fact, Edelyn categorically denied having any romantic involvement with appellant. love notes, testimony of other people who knew about their liaison) of appellant’s alleged amorous relationship with Edelyn. Except as to appellant’s self-serving testimony, there was no other proof (e.g. Moreover, even a romantic relationship would not exculpate appellant If he forced Edelyn to have sex with him. We note, however, that there was no proof of said relationship other than the self-serving testimony of accused. Appellant also anchors his innocence on the claim that he and Edelyn were romantically involved. GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT PROVEN IN CASE AT BAR. This she did on August 11, 1993, the same day appellant tried to sexually assault her again.Ĥ. At that point, Edelyn must have realized that the only way to stop appellant from continuing to threaten her life and disturbing her peace of mind is to confide to her parents her harrowing experience. Appellant again tried to molest Edelyn on Augand was deterred from accomplishing his lewd designs only when he saw Edelyn’s uncle approaching the house. These circumstances are enough to intimidate a fifteen-year old barrio lass to silence. After the incident, appellant kept on passing by Edelyn’s house, brandishing his knife. Indeed, appellant made sure that Edelyn is reminded of his continued presence in their neighborhood. Likewise, we reject appellant’s contention that Edelyn’s testimony is not worthy of credence because she reported the alleged sexual assault only 17 days later Edelyn explained that she was scared that appellant would carry out his threat to kill her and her family should she reveal to anyone that he molested her. NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY DELAY IN REPORTING SEXUAL ASSAULT. Even the rigid cross-examination by the defense did not yield any inconsistency on the victim’s testimony.ģ. She recounted in great detail the sexual assault she suffered in the hands of appellant. ![]() In the case at bar, Edelyn Giducos, the rape victim, positively identified appellant as the one responsible for sexually assaulting her. It is of judicial notice that the crime of rape is usually committed in a private place where only the aggressor and the rape victim are present. The testimony of a single witness, if categorical and candid, suffices. Moreover, credibility does not go with numbers. ![]() To begin with, there is no claim that other witnesses saw the crime but were not presented. The fact the she was the only eyewitness presented in court is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. CATEGORICAL AND CANDID TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT. In the case at bar, we find no reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of Giducos, the rape victim.Ģ. Nonetheless the trial court’s assessment of credibility is not conclusive on appellate courts as to deprive the latter of their right to review the totality of the evidence in each case. Appellate courts rely heavily on the weight given by the trial court on the credibility of a witness as it had a first-hand opportunity to hear and see the witness testify. It is trite to state that the matter of evaluating the credibility of witnesses depends largely on the assessment of the trial court. REMEDIAL LAW EVIDENCE CREDIBILITY, TRIAL COURT’S ASSESSMENT ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |