This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-02-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| (c) The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked. (Emphasis supplied.) Under R.A. No. 7610, Sec. 31(c), relationship is not a qualifying circumstance but only an ordinary generic aggravating circumstance. Thus, although it was not alleged in the information it can nevertheless be taken into account in fixing the penalty for the crime because it was proven.[74] A generic aggravating circumstance provides for the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period, while a qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime.[75] | |||||
|
2001-09-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is best performed by the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor during the trial. The findings of trial courts on questions of credibility are given the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that they have overlooked matters of substance which might have affected the result of the case.[23] When Rowena testified about the first time she was raped by accused-appellant Dionisio, Rowena cried.[24] When asked why she cried, she said that it was because she never thought her uncles could do such a thing to her.[25] Her emotional condition is evidence of the veracity of her claim.[26] | |||||