This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court, like the courts below, finds that "AAA" was without doubt telling the truth when she declared that her father raped her on three separate occasions. She was consistent in her narration on how she was abused by her father in their own house, in the copra drier, and even in a nearby pasture land. After she was forced to lie down, appellant removed her clothes, went on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and threatened her with death if she would report the incidents. Hence, appellant's attempt to discredit the testimony of "AAA" deserves no merit. "[W]hen credibility is in issue, the [Court] generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial."[24] Here, there is nothing from the records that would impel this Court to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court, like the courts below, is convinced that "AAA" truthfully narrated her ordeal. In this regard, a restatement of a consistent ruling, that "testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit, for youth and immaturity are badges of truth,"[11] is in order. | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Although there are inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the rape victim's testimony are to be expected.[23] This Court finds that these inconsistencies are not material to the instant case. We held, "Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party."[24] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. [21] On the basis of the records, the Court finds "AAA" candidly and categorically recounted the manner appellant threatened her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. "AAA" consistently testified that while she was on her way home after hearing the midnight mass on December 24, 1998, appellant suddenly and unexpectedly grabbed her, placed his right hand around her neck and poked a knife at the left portion of her abdomen, threatening to kill her if she shouts. He made her walk towards the house of Boyet where she was forced to lie on a bed and with the knife aimed at her side succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. [22] Reviewing the antecedents of this case, the Court, just as the courts below, is convinced of the truth and sincerity in the account of "AAA". It bears to stress that "[a]s a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit for youth and immaturity are badges of truth." [23] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, We reiterate the consistent principle the Court applies when the issue of credibility of witnesses is raised in the backdrop of the findings of the trial court which are wholly affirmed by the appellate court. An established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect.[15] Indeed, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves, and observed their deportment during trial.[16] | |||||