This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-07-08 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| It has been held in a long line of cases that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect. It is the trial judge who sees the behavior and demeanor of the witness in court. The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the victim's testimony.[16] In the case at bar, no compelling reason exists to disturb the trial court's finding disregarding the testimonies of the defense witnesses and upholding the credibility of Marietta who stood firm on her claim and testimony all throughout the trial. Her very clear and straightforward testimony can stand alone to warrant a conviction, particularly so that no proof of ill-motive on the part of Marietta was clearly shown to exist in filing these cases against the appellant. The defense failed poorly in proving that Marietta was motivated to falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of such a grave crime. The absence of convincing evidence showing any such improper motive on the part of Marietta strongly supports the conclusion that no such improper motive exists, and that her testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[17] It is settled that a person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if the trial court finds said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant, however, questions the credibility of Vanessa Rochelle and claims that her lack of resistance belies her claim of rape. The trial court found that the testimony of Vanessa Rochelle sufficiently proved the commission of the crime of rape. We have time and again held that the determination of the competence and credibility of a child to testify lies primarily with the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and intelligence of the witness on the stand. The findings of the trial court are thus entitled to great weight and credit, unless it has overlooked certain facts and circumstances of substance and value which, if properly considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[15] | |||||