Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROQUE ABELLANO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 200077 2014-09-17	PEOPLE v. ADEL RAMOS Y ABELLANA PEREZ, J.
In the review of rape cases, we continue to be guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[10] Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[11]
	GR No. 188669 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. ILDEFONSO MENDOZA Y BERIZO NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[5] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[6]
	GR No. 185004 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO FERASOL NACHURA, J.
In the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[7] Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue.[8]
	GR No. 178061 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOHN MONTINOLA CARPIO, J.
In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found AAA's testimony credible. The trial court held that, "The Court is impressed with the testimony of [AAA] who testified in categorical and straightforward manner and remained consistent throughout her testimony."[36] On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that: The x x x testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Contrary to appellant's submission that the testimony of complainant is not credible and reasonable in itself, We see no reason to deviate from the trial court's determination as to the credibility of complainant's testimony.[37] (Emphasis ours) The evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings, unless it overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[38] In People v. Abellano,[39] the Court held that: The trial court's evaluation of a witness' credibility is accorded the highest respect because it had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court has the strategic position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth and its findings thereon are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. (Emphasis ours) The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial court did not overlook or misconstrue any substantial fact which could have affected the outcome of the case. Montinola's claims involve minor or trifling matters that do not affect the outcome of the case. AAA's testimony was clear, positive, convincing, and consistent: Q Do you remember what unusual incident that [sic] happened to you last October 29, 1999?