This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The contention is untenable. The emphasis, gesture and inflection of the voice are potent aids in understanding the testimony of witnesses. The trial court has the opportunity and is presumed to take advantage of these aids in weighing the testimony of the witnesses. But as they cannot be incorporated into the record, this Court has no assistance in the examination of the testimony and must, therefore, rely upon the good judgment of the trial court.[55] Thus, in the absence of any showing that the trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, We are bound by its assessment.[56] | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On direct examination, AAA testified that she was raped by the accused on 15 March 2004 by inserting his penis into her vagina. However, on cross-examination, she said that she fainted at that time. We have held that inconsistencies which refer to minor, trivial, or inconsequential circumstances only serve to strengthen the credibility of said witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.[12] The presence of the maid at one point during the afternoon of 14 March 2004, and who between AAA and accused-appellant woke up first on the morning of 15 March 2004 are clearly trivial matters which have no bearing at all on the commission of the crime of rape. | |||||