This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Second, appellant notes the inconsistency in AAA's testimony that appellant allegedly covered her mouth with his right hand but in her sworn statement, she stated that appellant covered her mouth with his left hand. It has been held that inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[18] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As against the prosecution's strong case against the accused-appellant, the latter merely denied the accusation against him. No one even testified to corroborate his defense. Time and again, the Court has ruled that "a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him."[32] In this case, the accused-appellant even failed to present any possible ground for AAA and her mother to falsely testify against him. "[A]bsent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit."[33] "Between the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails."[34] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court increases the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 to AAA (rape);[74] and awards P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages to BBB (acts of lasciviousness).[75] | |||||
|
2013-07-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, we find that the Condes' account of the incident is persuasive. Both the CA-Cebu and the RTC found that the testimonies of the Condes were credible and presented in a clear and convincing manner. This Court has consistently put much weight on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the appellate court.[14] In People v. Mangune,[15] we stated that: It is well settled that the 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 first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity [to] take advantage of these aids.[16] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In his defense, appellant interposes denial while also ascribing ill motive on the part of the victim, his own biological daughter, for accusing him of rape. However, it is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law because denial cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence.[15] Likewise, the testimonies of the witnesses presented by appellant failed to buttress his defense of denial as they merely related to tangential matters which do not seriously affect the issue of AAA's credibility. | |||||