Yes teope xxx

She merely stated that they used mask and gloves when they collected the specimens; placed the same in a tube; put it inside a white envelope; and thereafter sealed it to [e]nsure that the specimens will not be contaminated. Indeed, in light of her mental state, [AAA's] simple narration of what happened to her is indicative of her honesty and naivet[e].135 (Citation omitted) Moreover, it would be unlikely for AAA to fabricate charges against Allan.136 When there is no proof showing that the witness was moved by any improper motive, his or her identification of the offender as the perpetrator of the crime shall be upheld.137 In affirming the finding of the accused's guilt, this Court is aware that "when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she had indeed been raped."138 If her testimony withstands the test of credibility, like in this case, "the rapist may be adjudged guilty solely on that basis."139 Therefore, Allan cannot exculpate himself, claiming that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt since AAA was allegedly not oriented to date, time, and place.

Allan insists that he could not have impregnated AAA because, as she has testified, she was raped when she was 13 years old but her first menstrual period was when she was 14 years old.85 Allegedly, AAA was inconsistent in her testimony because when she was interviewed, she did not know who raped her.86 Despite this, however, the trial court still relied on AAA's testimony.87 He argues that the DNA paternity test result's confirmation that he is the father of AAAs child is insufficient on its own for his conviction.88 He then assails the accuracy of the DNA test result claiming that: The record shows that Forensic Biologist, Delemen Dela Cruz did not state that she personally collected the biological specimens and neither did she mention that she put tamper tape on the collected specimens. Q When you say Allan, are you referring to Allan Corpuz the accused in these cases? Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.134 (Emphasis provided) [AAA's] degree of honesty is "great" because, with her mental age, she does not know what is right or wrong.

Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old, with a mental age of a 5[-]year[-]old [child], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice. The parties were then ordered to file their supplemental briefs, should they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Q Now, what did Allan do to you that made (him) the father of your daughter? Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."123(Emphasis provided, citations omitted) Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. (Emphasis provided) Therefore, an intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in court.129 "He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows."130 If an intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.131 Notwithstanding AAA's intellectual disability, she is qualified to take the witness stand.

In the Resolution82 dated September 4, 2013, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the Court of Appeals. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. -The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

Any1 know about a 1000 watts Westrack Brand Assembled Amp... My friend told me about the amp, his cousin use it for a mobile set up, he dont know the power rating of an Amp..

He says it was bought 2 years ago at Binondo at a Electronic Store, DECIBEZ..

Though never achieving the (marginal) commercial success enjoyed by Zappa, despite their musical similarities, Van Vliet is considered to be highly influential across many genres, with numerous musicians citing him as a major influence — some examples being punk rock pioneers Sex Pistols and The Clash, Tom Waits (whose career can be easily separated into pre- and post-introduction to Beefheart), Sonic Youth, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, PJ Harvey, The White Stripes and Joan Osborne.

The assailed Decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling that Allan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of Simple Rape of AAA7, a mental retardate (intellectually disabled) with a mental age of five (5) years and eight (8) months.8 Allan was charged with four (4) counts of rape in Branch 50, Regional Trial Court, Villasis, Pangasinan.9 The charging portions of the Informations read: Criminal Case No. Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old, with a mental age of a 5 [-]year[-]old [child], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice. Acosta's testimony on AAA's healed lacerations, as well as AAA's pregnancy and consequent delivery, conclusively confirmed that Allan had carnal knowledge of AAA.92 This is substantiated by AAA's "clear, straightforward and categorical testimony," and her positive identification of the offender.93 AAA's mental state was also undisputed.94 Hence, it is unlikely that AAA would fabricate the charges against Allan.95 Thus, A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration;publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and the scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. The evaluation of the credibility of a witness is "best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial."150 This Court gives great respect to the findings of trial courts, and more so when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.151 IV The discrepancies pertaining to "minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime" do not prejudice AAA's credibility.152 Thus, "[i]nstead of weakening [her] testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen [her] credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed."153 Admittedly, based on Dr.

There is, thus, uncertainty in the DNA evidence and the probability of contamination and error is great.89 (Citations omitted) He concludes that since his guilt was not established with moral certainty, he should be presumed innocent.90 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the prosecution was able to prove Allan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.91 Dr. III In sustaining a conviction for rape, "the victim's testimony must be clear and free from contradictions."141 This is indispensable because in this kind of offenses, "conviction or acquittal virtually depends entirely on the credibility of the complainant's narration since usually, only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.142 Generally, the issue in rape cases involves credibility.143 As "regards the credibility of witnesses, th[is] Court usually defers to the findings of the trial court, absent a strong and cogent reason to disregard [them]."144 Examination of the witnesses' demeanor during trial is essential "especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged."145 In trial, judges are given the opportunity "to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will."146 These indispensable matters can never be mirrored in documents, as well as in objects used as proof.147 In this case, the trial court found AAA's testimony as "categorical, straightforward and credible."148 Similarly, the Court of Appeals emphasized that it was already enough that AAA was able to identify her offender, as well as the sordid acts committed against her.149 Thus, this Court has no reason to disturb these findings.

This was done in the presence of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rodelle T. She affirmed that the comparison of their DNA profiles revealed a "100% proof that the accused is the biological father of XXX."62 Forensic Chemist Mary Ann Aranas conducted a confirmatory test, which affirmed the test result of the DNA paternity test.63 Through a Joint Decision,64 the Regional Trial Court convicted Allan of four (4) counts of Simple Rape on March 29, 2011.

She responded, "Iniyot nak, sir." (He had sex with me, sir.) She attested that when she was 13 years old, Allan had sex with her on four (4) occasions, each of which he gave her money.50 On the other hand, Allan and his daughter, Almeda Corpuz-Generosa (Almeda), testified for the defense.51 The testimony of Almeda was dispensed with after the prosecution agreed to accept her proposed testimony.52 She testified that when she asked AAA about her pregnancy, AAA failed to disclose who impregnated her.53 Allan denied the accusations and insisted that all the charges against him were merely fabricated by AAA's father, FFF.54 He allegedly sacked FFF as a truck driver in his sand and gravel business in 2001 for allowing his son to drive the truck that led to an accident.55 FFF allegedly also reported to the police that Allan had illegal drugs m his place,56 which caused his incarceration for illegal possession of dangerous drugs on January 2, 2002.57 He was later acquitted of the charge.58 Upon motion before the trial court, the defense applied for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) paternity test, which was granted on April 20, 2009.59 Forensic Biologist III Demelen dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) and Forensic Chemist I Gemma Shiela Orbeta of the National Bureau of Investigation, Manila, took biological samples such as buccal swab and blood from Allan, AAA, and XXX in open court. She testified that part of her duties as a forensic biologist was to conduct DNA paternity tests.61 Dela Cruz detailed every procedure that she followed beginning with DNA extraction and analysis using "a fully automated genetic analyzer (ABI 310 genetic analyzer)" until the printing of the resulting electropherogram, which had the DNA profiles of Allan, AAA, and : XXX.

Leave a Reply