GN Cases.pdf
1
People of the Philippines vs Roman Zafra G.R. No. 197363 26 June 2013 (Leonardo-De Castro, J.) Doctrine: Facts: Roman Zafra was charged of the crime of qualified rape against his 17 year-old minor daughter, AAA. AAA testified that her father was molesting her when she was around 13 to 14 years old. She claimed that her mother knew about it but did nothing to stop it. Aside from her bestfriend in school, AAA told no one about her ordeal for fear of her father, that her mother would not side her and that rumors about her would spread. AAA even moved to her Aunt’s house but the crime was again committed when Zafra had some chores for AAA in their house in which he grabbed AAA and made her lie to bed. Although she struggled with protests, it was met by slaps and punches. Zafra warned her against telling anybody of what happened. AAA decided to file a complaint against her father. She was accompanied by her mother but was prodding her not file any complaint. AAA however proceeded to file the complaint and was subjected to medical examination. The medico-legal report showed that she is in non-virgin state physically. Although Zafra denied the charge against him and claimed that iy was filed as an act of retaliation by his wife, the Trial Court Rendered its decision, giving credence to the prosecution’s version, found Zafra guilty of qualified rape of his minor daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. Issue: Is the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals right in giving credence to the version of the Prosecution? Held: Yes.
Transcript of GN Cases.pdf
People of the Philippines vs Roman Zafra G.R. No. 197363 26 June 2013(Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
Doctrine:
Facts:Roman Zafra was charged of the crime of qualified rape against his 17 year-old minor daughter, AAA. AAA testified that her father was molesting her when she was around 13 to 14 years old. She claimed that her mother knew about it but did nothing to stop it. Aside from her bestfriend in school, AAA told no one about her ordeal for fear of her father, that her mother would not side her and that rumors about her would spread. AAA even moved to her Aunt’s house but the crime was again committed when Zafra had some chores for AAA in their house in which he grabbed AAA and made her lie to bed. Although she struggled with protests, it was met by slaps and punches. Zafra warned her against telling anybody of what happened.
AAA decided to file a complaint against her father. She was accompanied by her mother but was prodding her not file any complaint. AAA however proceeded to file the complaint and was subjected to medical examination. The medico-legal report showed that she is in non-virgin state physically.
Although Zafra denied the charge against him and claimed that iy was filed as an act of retaliation by his wife, the Trial Court Rendered its decision, giving credence to the prosecution’s version, found Zafra guilty of qualified rape of his minor daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
Issue:Is the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals right in giving credence to the version of the Prosecution?
Held:
Yes.
