This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In cases of rape, only two (2) persons are normally privy to its occurrence, the complainant and the accused. Generally, the nature of the offense is such that the only evidence that can prove the guilt of the accused is the testimony of the complainant herself. Thus, the prosecution of rape cases is anchored mainly on the credibility of the complaining witness.[17] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The improbabilities alluded to by the appellant hinge on the assessment of the credibility of "AAA". When credibility is the issue that comes to fore, this Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court which had the first hand opportunity to hear the testimonies of witnesses and observe their demeanor, conduct and attitude during their presentation. Hence, the trial court's factual findings especially when affirmed by the appellate court are accorded the highest degree of respect and are conclusive and binding on this Court. A review of such findings by this Court is not warranted save upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances "such as when the court's evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which[, if considered, would] affect the result of the case." [20] Unfortunately for appellant, none of these recognized exceptions necessitating a reversal of the assailed Decision obtains in this instance. | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with cases of rape where conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. In People v. Coja, People v. Darilay, People v. Abulencia, People v. Salonga, et al., People v. Sabardan, People v. Gaufo, and People v. Perez,[19] to cite a few, the victims were unconscious but the circumstances in those cases all point to the accused as the perpetrator. Similarly in this case, we find sufficient evidence to affirm appellant's conviction. Lest it be overlooked, as a final consideration, the immature AAA had no motive--and none was ascribed by the defense--to falsely impute the commission of a serious crime against appellant. | |||||