This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court ordinarily puts great weight on the factual findings of the judge who conducted the trial of the case and heard the testimonies of the witnesses themselves. This is especially true in rape cases where the crime is usually committed in the presence of no other person than the victim and the accused. Compared to appellate magistrates who are merely faced with the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of records brought before them, the trial judge comes face to face with the rape victim herself on the witness stand. He personally observes her conduct and demeanor while responding to the questions propounded by the prosecutor on direct examination as well as those from the defense counsel on cross examination. Moreover, it is also the trial judge who has the chance to pose clarificatory questions to the victim. Thus, when the trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight upon the appellate court.[22] | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We would like to stress that the Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This means proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is present when, after the comparison and consideration of all the evidence adduced, the minds of the judges are left in a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge, a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.[46] To be sure, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[47] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Q: Will you please point to her? A: (Witness pointing to the person who, when asked, answered the name of Florenda Castro).[31] Admittedly, an accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. But proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[32] After all, We do not expect witnesses to give an "error-free testimony." Hindi tayo umaasa na ang mga saksi ay makapagsasalaysay nang walang anumang kamalian. | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| This Court places great weight on the factual findings of the trial judge. He conducted the trial and heard the testimonies of the witnesses. He personally observed their conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. He had the opportunity to pose clarificatory questions to the parties. Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court.[35] | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Compared to appellate magistrates who merely deal and contend with the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of stenographic notes and the original records brought before them, the trial judge confronts the victim or his heirs, the accused and their respective witnesses. He personally observes their conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. Moreover, it is also the trial judge who has the opportunity to pose clarificatory questions to the parties. Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court.[21] | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The trial court observed that AAA's and BBB's testimonies bear the hallmarks of truth. Their testimonies are "spontaneous, convincing and highly-credible."[45] We find no cogent reason not to apply here the oft-repeated rule that the matter of assigning values to the declaration of witnesses on the stand is a matter best left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.[46] This doctrine assumes greater significance when the determination of the trial court on the credibility of a witness has been affirmed by the appellate court.[47] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The Court ordinarily puts great weight on the factual findings of the judge who conducted the trial of the case and heard the testimonies of the witnesses themselves. This is especially true in rape cases where the crime is usually committed in the presence of no other person than the victim and the accused. Compared to appellate magistrates who are merely faced with the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of records brought before them, the trial judge comes face to face with the rape victim herself on the witness stand. He personally observes her conduct and demeanor while responding to the questions propounded by the prosecutor on direct examination as well as those from the defense counsel on cross examination. Moreover, it is also the trial judge who has the chance to pose clarificatory questions to the victim. Thus, when the trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight upon the appellate court.[28] | |||||