This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Q.- [AAA], do you know Rod Famudolan? A.- Yes, sir. Q.- Why do you know Rod Famudolan? A.- Because he was residing in our place. Q.- Do you know the house of Rod Famudolan? A.- Yes, sir. Q.- Where is it situated? A.- He is a neighbor of my Auntie. Q.- You are a victim in this case and you executed an affidavit? A.- Yes, sir. Q.- What did Rod Famudolan did (sic) to you? WITNESS: A.- He ordered me to sack (sic) his penis and he inserted his finger inside my vagina. PROS. DE LOS REYES: Q.- Then what else happened? A.- And he made a pumping motion, sir. x x x x Q.- What did he tell you if any? A.- He will kill and he will not let me live.[30] It has been held that when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[31] Besides, no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a stoiy of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[32] Given AAA's immaturity and the injuries as found in the medical report, consistent with sexual abuse, this Court finds no reason to reverse the CA and the RTC decisions. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court.[16] All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office. The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, particularly the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court.[17] | |||||