This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon us. As a general rule, on the question of whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth.[24] Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed.[25] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court. As a general rule, on the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth.[18] There is no cogent reason for us to depart from the general rule in this case. | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals opined that "errorless testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim for she may not be able to remember or recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too painful to remember." Indeed, it is doctrinal that date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission.[22] In statutory rape, time is not an essential element. What is important is that the information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use force or intimidation on her or deprived her of reason.[23] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Unfortunately for accused-appellant, findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court,[18] save only for certain compelling reasons.[19] We perused the records of the case at bar and found no reason to disturb the findings of the courts a quo. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.[12] In People v. Orillosa,[13] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.[14] When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[15] The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.[16] | |||||