This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court has meticulously scrutinized the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and finds that the RTC, as well as the CA, committed no error in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution. The Court has long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[23] This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[24] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses in rape cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion deserves much weight and respect because he/she has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[24] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The improbabilities which appellants pointed out are just as petty. There is no standard matrix by which to determine what constitutes normal behavior post assault. Different people react differently to trauma.[96] Hence, AAA's testimony that after appellant raped her, she stood up and walked home and hid her shame is not completely improbable. | |||||