This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-06-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We defer to the foregoing evaluation of the trial court.[6] It was in a better position to observe the witnesses' truthfulness, honesty, candor and demeanor.[7] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Significantly, Jovita positively identified the appellant as the one who sexually desecrated her womanhood on December 8 and 9, 1996. The well-established doctrine is that the victim's positive identification of the accused as her rapist prevails over his unsubstantiated denials, which are merely negative and self-serving allegations that cannot be given any weight on the scale of justice.[23] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Sec. 37. Dying declaration - The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death." A dying declaration, also known as an antemortem statement or a statement in articulo mortis, is one that refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death and is made under the consciousness of impending death.[54] Because of its necessity and trustworthiness, it is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. Necessity, because the declarant's death makes it impossible for him to take the witness stand;[55] and trustworthiness, for when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.[56] | |||||