This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It matters not that no other eyewitness corroborated AAA's testimony of the actual incidents. The testimony of the complainant as a lone witness to the actual perpetration of the act, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the accused because evidence is weighed and not counted.[26] If, in criminal cases of rape[27] or homicide,[28] the positive, categorical and credible testimony of a lone witness is deemed enough to support a conviction, then, in the case at bar, involving a case of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, this Court shall treat in the same manner the testimony of a single but credible witness for the prosecution. Especially if the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner, corroborative testimony is not needed to support a conviction.[29] | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| AAA's failure to offer any kind of resistance to her abuser is of no moment and cannot in any way affect the credibility of her testimony. Rape is perpetrated when the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim through the use of force or threats or intimidation. It must be stressed that the resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime, and it need not be established by the prosecution. In any event, the failure of the victim to shout or to offer tenacious resistance does not make the sexual congress voluntary. Indeed, rape victims have no uniform reaction: some may offer strong resistance; others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[25] | |||||
|
2000-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Here, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight, absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[4] We find no reason to overturn the trial court's detailed evaluation of the evidence for both the prosecution and the defense. Complainant Judeliza's testimony was given in a straightforward, clear, and convincing manner, which remained consistent even under cross-examination. The trial court found her testimony believable and convincing, while appellant's version of events incredible and outrageous. Moreover, as testified by the medico-legal officer, he found that her body bore evidences of physical and sexual assault. Appellant's bare denial could not prevail over said positive evidence. | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, accused Jerry put in issue the credibility of the victim Ervie Tonelete, upon whose testimony he was convicted. However, "it is well settled that the assessment by a trial court of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to the highest respect, because it heard the witness and observed their behavior and manner of testifying. Absent any showing that it overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, its factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal."[35] Considering that "the crime of rape is essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence it is usually the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus."[36] | |||||