This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-01-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court since the latter has the unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying,[24] unless attended with arbitrariness or plain disregard of pertinent facts or circumstances, the factual findings are accorded the highest degree of respect on appeal[25] as in the present case. | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In insisting that the trial court should not have given credence to the testimony of PO3 Bueno, appellant is basically making an issue about a witness's credibility. In this regard, we reiterate the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb factual findings of the trial court since the latter has the unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[24] Thus, unless attended with arbitrariness or plain disregard of pertinent facts or circumstances, the factual findings are accorded the highest degree of respect on appeal.[25] Our careful review of the records of this case reveals that the trial court did not err in relying on the testimony of PO3 Bueno. In open court, PO3 Bueno recounted their encounter with appellant as follows:PROS. LUNA: | |||||
|
2006-12-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| To begin with, well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal since conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[9] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In this case, as correctly found by the CA, there is nothing on the record that would impel this Court to deviate from the well-entrenched rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court unless these were reached arbitrarily or when the trial court misunderstood or misapplied some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[19] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the reviewing or appellate court and its evaluation regarding the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[32] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court[33] as it had the opportunity to observe closely their conduct and demeanor on the stand.[34] | |||||
|
2001-10-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| courts will not interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of the witnesses or set aside its judgment considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question for it had heard the witnesses themselves during the trial.[15] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court.[16] The trial court appreciated favorably the testimony of Benito Tejano as witness for the prosecution. His testimony was straightforward and spontaneous. He had no reason to perjure himself. He placed his own life and his family in danger when he decided to testify in | |||||
|
2000-09-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In cases of rape, this Court has been guided by the following principles in its review of trial court decisions: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person of the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[10] | |||||
|
2000-03-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention is without merit. Maricon had no motive to falsely claim that she had been raped by accused-appellant if this was not true. We have ruled that a young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give details of the assault on her dignity, cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction.[15] If her story had only been contrived, she would not have been so composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.[16] Maricon's testimony is likewise corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations. The evidence on record thus supports the trial court's finding that accused-appellant is guilty of raping Maricon. Appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment, unless it is shown that the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[17] | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We thus affirm the findings of the trial court on the credibility of Delia's narration of her defilement not only because of the settled rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect on appeal because it had the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and deportment while testifying, but more so because it is unnatural and highly improbable that a young girl would come out with such serious accusation, risking not only her honor and reputation but her family's as well.[17] Delia was only nine (9) years old when she was raped. At such tender age, she could not be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault that accused-appellant unconscionably perpetrated on her.[18] The revelation of an innocent child, like Delia, whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[19] Thus, testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age demand full credence.[20] "Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[21] And the credibility of a rape victim is augmented when, as in this case, she has no malevolent motive to testify against the accused-appellant or where there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by such motive.[22] | |||||