This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Granting AAA indeed resented his stepfather, the Court does not necessarily cast doubt on AAA's credibility as witness. Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants[29] who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examination.[30] After all, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes irrelevant and of no significance where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations towards the culpability of the accused for the felony. Well-entrenched is the doctrine which is founded on reason and experience that when the victim testifies that she has been raped, and her testimony is credible, such testimony may be the sole basis of conviction.[31] In this case, there could not have been a more powerful testament to the truth than her public outpouring of her unspoken grief. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for a monetary consideration.[40] Like any other testimony, recantations are subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.[41] Rape, defined and penalized under paragraph l(a) of Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, is punishable by reclusion perpetua, viz: | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anguac's allegation that AAA resented being made to work off her mother's debts has nothing to support itself. The appellate court found no sufficient basis to back Anguac's contention about AAA being asked to work to pay off her mother's obligation as a result of which she harbored a grudge against him and her mother. Moreover, the resentment angle, even if true, does not prove any ill motive on AAA's part to falsely accuse Anguac of rape or necessarily detract from her credibility as witness. Motives, such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge, have not prevented the Court from giving, if proper, full credence to the testimony of minor complainants[9] who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examination.[10] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellate courts have consistently deferred to the findings and conclusions made by a trial judge principally because it is the latter who gets the opportunity to directly and intimately observe the witnesses and to determine, by their demeanor on the witness stand, the probative strength or weakness of that which they declare. The witnesses can reveal much more than what can ordinarily be reflected in and perceived from the transcripts that merely would contain the matter which is stated but not how it is said. Tell-tale marks of either honesty or fabrication, truth or concoction, reality or imagination, may be gleaned from a meaningful pause or spontaneous ready reply, the angry or subdued denial, the forthright stare or the elusive eyes, the sudden pallor or the flush of face, and all that characterizes the deportment and peculiar outward behavior of witnesses when their response to both direct examination and cross examination is elicited. These signs, available to the trial judge, are easily lost on the appellate court.[25] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q: Why? A: Because he was poking a knife at me and he told me that if I will report to my mother, he will kill my mother and my grandmother, Ma'am.[45] The defense foisted by the appellant on the Court, that Lovely Faith was coached by her mother to conceal the latter's alleged illicit relationship with her stepfather, has been unsubstantiated. Motives such as feuds, resentment or revenge have never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor complainant.[46] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Motives such as resentment, hatred, or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim.[47] Besides, the transcript of stenographic notes fails to show that Christine's testimony was elicited by intimidation or undue influence. Far from being an "orchestrated story," as appellant claims, Christine's testimony clearly appears candid, spontaneous and clear. | |||||