This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The contention is untenable. The emphasis, gesture and inflection of the voice are potent aids in understanding the testimony of witnesses. The trial court has the opportunity and is presumed to take advantage of these aids in weighing the testimony of the witnesses. But as they cannot be incorporated into the record, this Court has no assistance in the examination of the testimony and must, therefore, rely upon the good judgment of the trial court.[55] Thus, in the absence of any showing that the trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, We are bound by its assessment.[56] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Both appellants relied on the defenses of denial and alibi. It bears stressing that positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime demolishes the alibi - the much abused sanctuary of felons.[40] In the case under review, appellant Florenda was positively identified by key prosecution witnesses as one of the passengers of the get-away vehicle used by the assailant Christopher. The witnesses for the People are sufficiently and adequately familiar with Florenda. The witnesses for the prosecution were either appellant's neighbors or related to her by affinity. As for appellant Christopher, the evidence pointing to him as the triggerman that fell both Alfredo and Elpidio is overwhelming. | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On direct examination, AAA testified that she was raped by the accused on 15 March 2004 by inserting his penis into her vagina. However, on cross-examination, she said that she fainted at that time. We have held that inconsistencies which refer to minor, trivial, or inconsequential circumstances only serve to strengthen the credibility of said witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.[12] The presence of the maid at one point during the afternoon of 14 March 2004, and who between AAA and accused-appellant woke up first on the morning of 15 March 2004 are clearly trivial matters which have no bearing at all on the commission of the crime of rape. | |||||
|
2003-07-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q: What did he tell you? A: He will (sic) kill all of us, sir.[9] As the above-quoted testimonies would attest, the response and conduct of the complainant amidst an overpowering sexual assault do not disclose any hint of voluntariness on her part to submit to accused-appellant's lecherous advances. In fact, under the circumstances, she gave a rather good account of herself in defending her honor and dignity by resisting her assailant with utmost courage and determination. If she eventually submitted, meekly as it seemed, to the libidinous incursions of accused-appellant it was more a reflection of the terror and fear in her young mind and the sense of futility of any form of resistance. The pronouncement of this Court in People v. Pamor is instructive - [10] | |||||