This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Time and again this Court has deferred to the trial court's assessment of the witnesses and their credibility having the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to detect if they were telling a lie.[10] This Court does not have the vantage position of a trial judge but merely relies on the cold records and the judge's discretion. In the absence of any showing that his factual findings were reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, these findings are to be received with great respect by this Court, and indeed are binding upon it.[11] A cautious examination of the records and stenographic notes required in reviewing rape cases convinces us that the supposed inconsistencies have been satisfactorily explained. | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense also claims as an error the failure of the prosecution to present the barangay chairman and the saleslady of the cooperative store to corroborate the statements of the complainant. The argument is unavailing for evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not necessarily of quantity.[23] The chairman and the saleslady could not augment the testimony of the complainant as to the commission of the crime itself as they were not witnesses to it. Their testimonies are not indispensable, particularly in rape cases, where the conviction may rest solely on the testimony of the victim if found credible since the crime is seldom committed in the presence of third parties. | |||||