This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, "AAA's" testimony is corroborated by the result of her medical examination which showed the presence of a deep healed laceration in her private part.[70] This finding is consistent with her declaration that appellant inserted his penis and finger into her vagina. "Where a victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place."[71] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Further propounding on retractions, usually contained in affidavits of desistance, we said in People v. Alcazar[42]: We have said in so many cases that retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with disfavor by the courts. The unreliable character of this document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having the [appellant] arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish, [the rape victim] would suddenly turn around and declare that [a]fter a careful deliberation over the case, (she) find(s) that the same does not merit or warrant criminal prosecution. | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has consistently held that in rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. Generally, appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's assessment in this regard, absent any indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts of substance or value, or gravely abused its discretion. [18] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As put down on record, AAA broke down and cried as she was giving her testimony before the RTC. Such tears were a clear indication that she was telling the truth. As it has been repeatedly held, no woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice.[29] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The oft-repeated principle is that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by a trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination.[11] Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, misinterpreted, or the court gravely abused its discretion.[12] None of these exceptions are present in this case. | |||||