This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The appeal is meritorious. While it is our policy to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the trial court,[6] owing to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination,[7] where there exist facts or circumstances of weight and influence which have been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of facts,[8] we may disregard its findings. | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| She thus had every opportunity to see them and imprint their faces in her memory. Further, at the time that complainant was forced to drink gin with her ravishers, it was still light. Considering her proximity to them, she could clearly see them and later recall their faces and features. In fact, she even testified that appellant had a tattoo on his chest,[33] which appellant did not deny. Both at the police line-up[34] and in open court,[35] private complainant unhesitatingly pointed to appellant as among her defilers. A witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness.[36] The testimony of the young victim, in this case, is unwavering. According to her, all the three accused had phallic | |||||