This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| ATTY. VILLORDON: Q: Do you have an auntie by the name of [CCC]? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Does she know about this rape done to you by Aying? A: No, Sir. Q: You did not tell her even [if] she is your [a]untie? A: I did not tell her. Q: Have you talk[ed] to [CCC] before you filed these cases? A: No, Sir.[22] Moreover, appellant's claim of instigation on the part of "CCC" is not supported by evidence. While P/Supt. Naces was presented as witness and testified that appellant indeed made a report about "CCC's" alleged involvement in illegal drug activities, there was no showing that prior to the filing of the complaints, "CCC" came to know about such fact for her to harbor a grudge against appellant. Also, it was not even known if "CCC" was incarcerated due to appellant's report. The claim, therefore, that "CCC" merely instigated "AAA" to claim rape against appellant is not worthy of credence. As things stand, no ill-motive can be imputed upon "AAA". "It is a settled rule that where there is no evidence, and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that [she] was not so actuated and [her] testimony is entitled to full faith and credit."[23] | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The basic rule is that findings and conclusions of a trial court, upon whom the responsibility of assessing the credibility of witnesses primarily rests, deserve great weight and respect.[25] Conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court.[26] When the question arises as to which version is to be believed, the judgment of the trial court is accorded the highest respect in view of the opportunity it had to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand. Concededly, it is in a better position than an appellate court to discern whether a witness is telling the truth or fabricating a lie. Barring arbitrariness and oversight of facts which might affect the result of the case, such assessment must bind even this Court. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We disagree with the contention that the victim's failure to shout for help is fatal to the charge of rape. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by appellant's contention that the victim offered no resistance. Rape is committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of a woman by use of force or intimidation.[29] Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony, and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety.[30] It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[31] Furthermore, not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone.[32] The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.[33] | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The issue of credibility should also be resolved against DANILO. Time and again, we have said that we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of the witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[26] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Which of the two (2) conflicting narrations of what transpired between the parties deserves greater weight and better entitled to full credence, is the crux of this controversy. Indeed, this matter involves the assessment of credibility, a task best left to the trial court, which had the advantage of observing the witnesses directly, picking up on the subtle nuances of human behavior, and the emphasis, gesture and inflection of voice; and, of testing their credibility by their demeanor on the stand.[6] We have often said that we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the behavior of Jenny Camacho in running towards her house instead of ensuring that her husband was safe, and in failing to immediately charge petitioner with the crime, cannot taint her credibility as a witness. Jenny testified that when informed of her husband's death, she lost consciousness. Witnesses of startling occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of mind and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] The workings of human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint and others may be shocked into insensibility.[15] Further, it is settled that delay or vacillation in reporting a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness and render her testimony unworthy.[16] | |||||