This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that the possible reason why he was implicated in this grievous crime is because AAA had a crush on him, is simply unacceptable to this Court. Aside from being self-serving, it also lacks sufficient basis. Similarly, it is highly inconceivable that AAA in her condition as a mental retardate with a mental age of an eight-year-old-child would fabricate a charge of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter submit herself to a public trial or ridicule, if she had not, in fact, been a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[57] Plainly, only a woman seeking justice with truth as her weapon could have braved this calvary.[58] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| circumstances of weight and influence which have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[25] This is because the trial judge has the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate court, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[26] In this case, the evidence in the records fully supports the trial court's findings that accused-appellants tried to sell a regulated drug without the requisite authority to do so. Three of the alleged eyewitnesses testified before the lower court. They were Fajardo, Pedroza | |||||