This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[51] This Court has repeatedly recognized that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath.[52] These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth.[53] The appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[54] In this case, none of these circumstances are present. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to accused-appellant's assertion that it is contrary to human experience that a person with lustful design would run after his prey in a place less than private, suffice it to say that lust does not respect either time or place;[9] that sexual abuse is committed in the most unlikely places. The evil in man has no conscience--the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[10] | |||||
|
2009-08-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's factual findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and are binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[17] This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As regards the award of damages, however, we find a slight modification in order. The civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals is proper. The award of civil indemnity is mandatory in rape convictions. A civil indemnity of P50,000 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the commission of rape. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P50,000 for moral damages is likewise appropriate.[24] | |||||