This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-08-05 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As for the first, it has been too often observed, so as to become sadly mundane, that rape is no respecter of time or place.[30] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[31] | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Nor can we accept the argument that the rape was impossible due to the presence of Noniluna's sons by her side. This Court has repeatedly declared that lust is no respecter of time and place[18] and rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping.[19] Also contrary to accused-appellant's assertion,[20] the complainant testified that her children noticed him during the commission of the crime but they did not do anything because they were afraid of their grandfather. Such fear is understandable and expected. Not only was the culprit a close relative who took care of them whenever their mother was not around and thus wielded authority over them, he was also known to have served time in prison. The sight of him armed with a butcher's knife and of their mother in tears is enough to frighten any child into silence. Thus, we cannot expect the children, because of their tender age, to be of any help to their mother and the lack of reaction from them is not at all unusual. Besides, at eight (8) and five (5), it is quite possible that they did not understand what was going on. | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant likewise tried to refute the rape charges by presenting pictures of the house[31] and that, since the structure is such that there are no doors separating the different portions of the house, it would be impossible for the sexual assaults to go unnoticed. But lust is no respecter of time and place. "Rape has been committed and consummated in places where people congregate, like parks or school premises, and even in a house where there are other occupants."[32] | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, and carriage and mien.[30] Equally, when a person fabricates a story, he usually adopts a simple account because a complex one might lead to entanglement from which he may find it hard to extricate himself. Along the same line, the experience of the courts and the general observations of humanity teach us that the natural limitations of our inventive faculties are such that if a witness delivers in court a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements which can be readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor the falsity of his message.[31] Aside from this, it is not also unusual that the witness may have been coached before he is called to the stand to testify. | |||||
|
2000-02-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit ROSALIE is unconvincing. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. It is well established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[11] The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[12] We find no cogent and legal basis to disturb the finding of the trial court upholding the credibility of the complainant ROSALIE who "despite hard questions of the court, to test and ascertain her credibility of viewing the incident, clearly stood firm on what happened."[13] | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, this Court does not unduly disturb the findings by the lower court on the credibility of witnesses. The determination by the said court on the matter is accorded great weight and respect here since it had the distinct advantage and singular opportunity to observe the witnesses during the hearing through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood.[46] Sans any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been overlooked or that the trial court's findings are arbitrary,[47] the conclusions arrived at below must be respected and the judgment on the basis thereof affirmed. | |||||