This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts because trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[18] In the absence of any arbitrariness in the trial court's findings and evaluation of evidence tending to show that it overlooked certain material facts and circumstances, its findings and evaluation of evidence should be respected on review.[19] The presiding judge of the trial court had the opportunity to actually observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand on direct examination by the prosecution, cross-examination by the defense as well as during clarificatory questioning by the trial judge himself.[20] Between the trial judge and this Court, the former was concededly in a better position to determine whether or not a witness was telling the truth.[21] Based on the records, we find no reason to disagree with the trial court's assessment and to discredit the prosecution's witnesses. | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The assertion of the accused that Marita was no longer a virgin when she was raped will not exculpate him from criminal liability. The records show that Marita was sexually abused twice. After inserting his fingers, the accused inserted his organ into her private part, and after awhile, accused repeated the sexual abuse. Clearly, when Marita was raped for the second time, she was no longer a virgin; she could have already lost her virginity during the first rape. Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape.[14] It should be emphasized however that since the Information charged only one offense, even if the evidence showed a second act of forcible intercourse, conviction for one rape was proper.[15] | |||||