This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-02-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We sustain the above findings of the trial court under the settled rule that appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses considering that it is in a better position to observe their candor and behavior on the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[15] These exceptions are not present in this case. | |||||
|
2002-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| their deportment and manner of testifying. The trial court judge is no doubt in the best position to determine the truthfulness of the complainant's testimony. Thus, unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal.[24] The Court adheres to the rule that when the testimony of a woman who states under oath that she has been raped meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such testimony. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| of testifying. The trial court judge is indisputably in the best position to determine the truthfulness of the complainant's testimony. Thus, unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal.[20] That Genelyn was raped by accused-appellant is also supported by the findings of the examining physician that the victim's labia majora had "erythematous irritations" which could have been inflicted by the pressure of an erect adult penis.[21] | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| witnesses testify and observing their deportment and manner of testifying. The trial court judge is indisputably in the best position to determine the truthfulness of the complainant's testimony. Thus, unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal.[24] The Court has adhered to the rule that when the testimony of a woman who states under oath that she had been raped meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such testimony. This is so because by its very nature, rape is committed with the | |||||