This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with the CA's findings that only the generic aggravating circumstances of commission of the crime in an uninhabited place and minority can be appreciated relative to the first rape incident. As regards the second rape incident, guardianship was alleged in the information[28] and was not assailed by the defense. The Court notes, too, that the parties stipulated during the pre-trial that the accused-appellant was AAA's godfather.[29] Notwithstanding the foregoing, jurisprudence strictly dictates that the guardian must be a person who has a legal relationship with his ward,[30] which does not obtain in the case before this Court. Ineluctably, guardianship cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance and the accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape. | |||||
|
2012-03-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant Lolito Aquino claimed he merely admitted his participation in the crime out of fear of the police authorities who allegedly manhandled him, however, the trial court did not find his story convincing. The trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is conclusive on this Court as it is the trial court which had the opportunity to closely observe the demeanor of witnesses.[27] The Court again explained the rationale for this principle in Molina,[28] to wit: As oft repeated by this Court, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The trial judge therefore can better determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[29] | |||||