This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court does not subscribe to appellant's claim that the filing of the rape charges was part of ABC's effort to gain custody of her children, especially since the accused failed to prove the same. This is mere conjecture and obviously, a vain attempt to escape liability from his dastardly acts. It will take a sick and sinister parent to conjure up such a ploy and use an offspring as an engine of malice. It is also unthinkable for a mother to allow an examination of her daughter's private parts and subject her through the rigors and humiliation of a public trial if the accusations were not true, or if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for the defloration of her daughter apprehended and punished.[30] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Neither can appellant find refuge in complainant's failure to promptly report the sexual assault to her relatives. Long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a false accusation.[4] In fact this principle applies with greater force in this case where the offended party was barely twelve years old, and was therefore susceptible to intimidation and threats to physical harm. | |||||
|
2002-11-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| unfair to judge the action of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected of mature individuals under the same circumstances.[30] At any rate, GINA managed to escape after the fourth rape when she was already 12 years old. JOSE's insinuation of ill-motive on the part of GINA to falsely accuse him of rape deserves scant consideration. We agree with the trial court that "[t]he attributed ill-will, even if the same is true,...[would] not drive GINA to denounce and pin down [her] father with so | |||||