This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In essence, the crime of rape is typically committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, thus, normally it is only the victim who can testify on the circumstances surrounding the forced coitus.[49] Therefore, in the prosecution of rape, the credibility of the rape victim is usually the single most important issue to determine.[50] Should her testimony withstand the test of credibility, the victim's account would be adequate to sustain a conviction.[51] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The lower courts dismissed the testimony of Garcia -- regardless of how clear, positive and straightforward it was -- solely on the ground that he was not a disinterested witness. True, he was an employee of respondent; relationship, however, will not by itself determine the true worth of one's testimony.[29] The essential test is whether such testimony is disencumbered, credible, and in accord with human experience.[30] It cannot easily be dismissed by the mere invocation of the witness' relationship with respondent. In sum, we have no reason to disagree with the CA's evaluation that, being credible, Garcia's direct testimony was sufficient to establish respondent's claim that petitioner had entered the premises on December 1, 1993. | |||||