This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-01-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Florfina positively identified appellant by his voice.[23] The sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.[24] This is especially true in the rural areas, where people have the luxury of time to observe and get to know their neighbors fully. We note that appellant did not deny that he and Florfina had known each other since childhood. Since Florfina was familiar with appellant's voice, she could identify him by that means. | |||||
|
2002-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court sees no reason to depart from the conclusions of the trial court whose findings of facts are accorded great respect, being in the unique position to observe the demeanor, act, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses in court while testifying.[14] Verily, the trial court correctly disregarded the ill motive imputed by accused-appellant on the relatives of the complainant. It is highly improbable that they would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of complainant's private parts and submit her to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and their sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[15] | |||||