This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| indicates that the accused was in full control of his mental faculties.[58] Additionally, the trial judge observed that, during the hearings, Anacito was attentive, well-behaved, and responsive to the questions propounded to him. Thus, the shift in theory from denial and alibi to a plea of insanity, made apparently after the appellant realized the futility of his earlier defenses, is a clear indication that insanity is a mere concoction[59] or an afterthought.[60] In any event, Anacito failed to establish by convincing evidence his alleged insanity at the time he killed Demetrio Jr. and Allan Dacles. He is thus presumed sane, and we are constrained to affirm his conviction.[61] We likewise reject the alternative plea of Anacito that he be credited with the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower. In the cases where we credited this mitigating circumstance after rejecting a plea of insanity, it was clear from the records that the accused had | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| We recognize the doctrine that testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[9] In this case, LEONILA was proven to be only ten years old when SALVADOR raped her. | |||||
|
2000-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| (1) The reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) The findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) A witness who testified in clear, positive, and convincing manner and remained consistent on cross-examination, is a credible witness.[12] Applying these guidelines, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of private complainant's credibility. Appellant has shown no reason whatsoever for us to doubt her testimony. The records show that private complainant testified as to her ravishment in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner. She positively identified appellant as her rapist. She was consistent in her narration of how she was dragged inside appellant's house, boxed into submission, and ravished.[13] We find that private complainant did not waiver in her account of her harrowing experience under intense and grueling cross-examination[14] Absent any showing that the trial court's assessment of her credibility was flawed, we are bound by its findings.[15] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's suggestion that complainant's testimony was "incredible" does not mean that he did not rape Marites. We have held that the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[14] With respect to private complainant's credibility, the trial court made the following observation:"This court had the opportunity to observe both the private complainant and the accused on the witness stand. From the manner they both testified this court finds good and strong reasons to give full faith and credit to Marites' account. Marites answered the questions propounded at her spontaneously and with candor, The accused, on the other hand, was nervous and obviously withheld from the Court some vital information he knew about."[15] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Neither are we persuaded by EDGARDO's plea of "temporary insanity." As the OSG aptly stated, "temporary insanity" is not recognized in this jurisdiction. Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, connotes that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime,[9] or that he must have acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the accused' mental faculties does not exclude imputability.[10] Moreover, EDGARDO was unable to substantiate his claim. The law presumes every man to be sane. If the accused interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing such fact rests upon him.[11] Insanity must be proved by clear and positive evidence.[12] Finally, EDGARDO did not raise this argument below, but only now, obviously as a delayed afterthought. | |||||