Sunday, December 04, 2011

People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Parohinog Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, September 27, 2010.

Evidence; testimony of witness. The fact is that AAA’s testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a witness, a rape victim no less, to have some inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions. Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime — carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Parohinog Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, September 27, 2010.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Parohinog Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, September 27, 2010."

Post a Comment