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. | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| AAA was merely 10 years old at the time the rape incidents took place. Considering her age, innocence and lack of experience, AAA's actions were nothing unusual or abnormal. Moreover, the accused-appellant was the common-law husband of the victim's mother. The victim lived under the same roof with accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's constant presence was thus enough to cow AAA into silence. Furthermore, it is not proper to judge the action of children, like AAA, who have undergone traumatic experiences, by the norms of behavior expected of mature individuals under the same circumstances. Their reactions to harrowing incidents may not be uniform.[26] This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted by any modicum of doubt.[27] | |||||
|
2009-02-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, CCC would not allow her children to be exposed to a public trial, if the charges she made were not true. No mother would consider subjecting her own daughters to the shame, humiliation, disgrace, exposure, anxiety and tribulation attendant to a public trial for rape -- which in all likelihood would result in the incarceration, if not death, of the father of her children for the rest of his life -- if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person responsible for the defloration of her daughters apprehended and punished.[38] In fact, when asked how she felt upon learning that it was her husband who molested their daughters, CCC testified that she was furious.[39] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[7] As a general rule, when the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies.[8] In the instant case, the trial court even categorically stated that Mahinay "was hesitant, uneasy and evasive in his answers to the questions propounded by the prosecutor." | |||||
|
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 | |||||
|
2001-08-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant begs the question when he requires additional evidence of physical injury. In rape cases, it is the victim's lacerated hymen that is more conclusive than any physical injury. People v. Alimon[13] is in point. There the accused capitalized on the absence of physical injuries on the body of the victim as well as on the alleged uncertainty of penile penetration since it was claimed that he placed himself on top of the victim although did not succeed in fully inserting his penis into her organ. The Court however found the victim's healed lacerations to be consistent with her claim that she was raped, and adjudged the accused guilty of the crime. It held that the absence of any external sign or physical injury on the body of the victim did not negate the commission of the crime of rape. So we hold in this case. | |||||