This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Robert and Yao San cannot be blamed for not immediately reporting the incident to the authorities. Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were still held by appellants and their cohorts when the ransom was demanded for their release. Appellants and their cohorts were armed and dangerous. Appellants and their cohorts also threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond if Yao San and Robert would report the incident to the authorities.[58] Understandably, Yao San and Robert were extremely fearful for the safety of their loved ones, and this caused them to refrain from reporting the incident. Robert and Yao San cannot also be blamed for not reporting the incident to the police even after the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond had already been found, and appellants and their cohorts had cut their communication with them. Certainly, the killings of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond had a chilling/paralyzing effect on Robert and Yao San. Also, appellants and their cohorts were still at large then, and the possibility that they would harm the remaining members of the Yao family was not remote, considering that appellants and their cohorts were familiar with the whereabouts of the Yao family. At any rate, we have held that failure to immediately report the kidnapping incident does not diminish the credibility of the witnesses.[59] The lapse of a considerable length of time before a witness comes forward to reveal the identities of the perpetrators of the crime does not taint the credibility of the witness and his testimony where such delay is satisfactorily explained.[60] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed acts of sexual abuse against Cristina. The trial court found Cristina's testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward.[35] Her testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner, is worthy of faith and belief.[36] In the face of the accusations against him, petitioner could only interpose uncorroborated alibi and denial. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.[37] Not only did Cristina identify the petitioner as her assailant but no ill-motive was adduced why she would impute against him so grave a charge. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed. None of the exceptions obtain in the instant case.[38] | |||||