This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-11-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court is not unmindful of the general rule that findings of the trial court regarding credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and even finality on appeal.[29] However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.[30] In the past, this Court has not hesitated to reverse a judgment of conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was false.[31] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[50] Witnessing a crime is one novel experience that elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn.[51] This is especially true if the assailant is physically near.[52] Moreover, it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons.[53] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Luzorata,[31] the Court held that intimidation was addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence could not be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime. Thus, when a rape victim becomes paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently, her failure to immediately take advantage of the early opportunity to escape does not automatically vitiate the credibility of her account. [32] "Complainant cannot be faulted for not taking any action inasmuch as different people react differently to a given type of situation, there being no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience."[33] | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's allegation of an illicit amorous relationship is too shopworn to deserve serious consideration and is totally unworthy of credence. A circumspect scrutiny of the record discloses that the 'illicit love affair' angle appears as a fabrication by accused- appellant. As an affirmative defense, the alleged 'love affair' needs convincing proof.[10] Having admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant several times,[11] accused-appellant bears the burden of proving his defense by substantial evidence.[12] The record shows that other than his self-serving assertions, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused-appellant and private complainant were in love. | |||||