This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Further, it is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[11] The Court observes restraint in interfering with the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, more so, when the CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial court's findings of fact, the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses, the determination of physical evidence and conclusions.[12] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Prosecution witnesses Josephine and Frederick had positively identified both accused-appellants at the police station soon after accused-appellants' arrest. The same prosecution witnesses, together with Homer, would again positively identify both accused-appellants in open court during trial. Hence, accused-appellant Randy's presence at the time and place of Maximillian's stabbing was duly established. Accused-appellant Randy was not able to attribute any ill motive on the part of the three prosecution witnesses that could have impelled them to testify against him. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, under the solemnity of an oath, deserve full faith and credence. It necessarily prevails over alibi and denial, especially when neither alibi nor denial is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[30] Nonetheless, accused-appellant Randy's presence at the time and place of Maximillian's stabbing does not necessarily mean that the former should bear criminal liability for the latter's death, as the Court will subsequently discuss herein. | |||||