This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not discredit the credibility of a victim. Human experience dictates that a rape victim, especially a young girl, who experienced sexual assault, is expected to conceal assaults on her virtue;[14] this principle validates the social stigma a rape victim may suffer after she discloses her ordeal, especially in a conservative society such as ours. In effect, "the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny."[15] Therefore, AAA's failure to immediately report the rape incident does not undermine her credibility as a witness. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To begin with, it is a fundamental principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[25] This is so because the trial court is in a unique position to observe the witnesses' demeanor on the witness stand.[26] The above rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,[27] like in the case under consideration. | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight which if properly assessed would warrant a reversal of the questioned decision.[11] Certainly, Rosita's testimony is straightforward, categorical and convincing. When asked to recount her first harrowing experience in the hands of her stepfather, tears freely fell from her eyes.[12] The young Rosita could not have given a more | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are thus qualifying circumstances which increase the penalty, as distinguished from a generic aggravating circumstance, which affects only the period of the penalty. As such, it should be alleged in the information as a requirement of the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him[22] These special qualifying circumstances must also be proved with certainty; otherwise, the penalty of death cannot be imposed upon the accused. Thus, should the information fail to allege any of these two qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the correct imposable penalty would be reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| All told, the defense of denial and alibi interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail over his positive identification[51] by the two complainants. It is a lame excuse on the part of accused-appellant that he was at the market selling fish during the subject dates when the rapes happened. Not even the corroborating testimonies of the other defense witnesses could help his cause. A bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of the complainants.[52] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.[53] Accused-appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at home at the subject dates when the rapes were allegedly committed. We find it incredible for defense witnesses, Corazon Bandong and Perla Ursua, to vividly remember the dates when they saw him in the market, i.e., January 14, February 16 and 23, 1998, to show that accused-appellant could not have committed the rapes. | |||||