This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| This Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's assessment of AAA's credibility or of any of the prosecution's witnesses for that matter. Absent any evidence that it was tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of a fact of consequence or influence, the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight, if not conclusive or binding on this Court. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the CA affirms the same, as in this case.[17] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it was stipulated during the pre-trial conference that appellant is the guardian of AAA. However, we cannot simply invoke this admission to consider guardianship as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape. "Circumstances that qualify a crime and increase its penalty to death cannot be subject of stipulation. The accused cannot be condemned to suffer the extreme penalty of death on the basis of stipulations or admissions. This strict rule is warranted by the gravity and irreversibility of capital punishment. To justify the death penalty, the prosecution must specifically allege in the information and prove during the trial the qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender."[39] | |||||
|
2010-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Considering the age of the complainant, the Court finds it improbable for a girl of her age to fabricate a charge so traumatic to herself and her family had she not been truly subjected to the painful experience of sexual abuse.[18] Under rigid cross-examination, she was steadfast in relating her ordeal and nightmarish experience at the hands of the accused. For accuracy, the details of her defilement are hereby reproduced as follows: | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has emphasized that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. In essence, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when the Court of Appeals affirms the same,[32] as in this case. | |||||