This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant relies heavily on this Court's pronouncement in People of the Philippines v. Cartuano, Jr.,[59] that there must be proper historical and physical examination to determine the existence of mental retardation. However, in People of the Philippines v. Acero,[60] the Court held that said pronouncement did not preclude the presentation by the prosecution of evidence other than clinical evidence to prove the mental retardation of the victim;[61] and that mental retardation can be proved by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimonies of witnesses and even the observation of the trial court; and that the observation of the trial court, its impression of the demeanor and deportment of the victim and its conclusions anchored thereon are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect on the appellate court.[62] | |||||