Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181900 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. DEMETRIO SALAZAR VELASCO JR., J.
Next, accused-appellant questions the trial court's reliance on the testimony of AAA. Citing People v. Domogoy,[27] accused-appellant posits that AAA's testimony must be received with caution.
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA 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]
	GR Nos. 144080-81 2004-01-26	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO DE JESUS QUISUMBING, J.
The rule that this Court should refrain from disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimony does not apply where the trial court might have overlooked certain facts of substance or value which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[45] Further, this Court will not hesitate to reverse a judgment of conviction and acquit the accused where there are strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was motivated by some factors other than the truth as to its commission.[46] While the allegation of ill motive on the part of the mother stemming from a dispute over the house and lot owned by the Lumibaos has not been sufficiently proven by the documentary evidence, we cannot discount the fact that a family squabble existed among the parties, which could have prompted the mother to file a rape charge against appellant.
	GR No. 128876 2001-09-21	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO FELIZAR Y CAPULI PARDO, J.
The trial court relied so much on the fact that complainant came from a remote area in the province of Catanduanes, and was thus naïve on the ways of the world. However, "in this age of permissiveness, the virtuous Maria Claras who need only to shout rape to get a conviction are now rare breeds"[25] and courts must regard with utmost caution and not just accept with precipitate credulity the testimony of complainant.[26]
	GR No. 121980 2000-02-23	PEOPLE v. GONZALO PENASO QUISUMBING, J.
In rape cases the issue, more often than not, is the credibility of the victim. Rape is generally unwitnessed and very often the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution.[10] When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith and credit and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[11]