This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Here, AAA's testimony was found by the lower courts to be credible. Absent any compelling reason brought forth by appellant, this Court does not see any need for it to deviate from their finding. In any event, it is evident from the transcript that AAA narrated what had happened to her in a clear and straight forward manner. The sequence of events from the appellant reading her palm-fortune, to the trisikad ride, to appellant's dragging her to a secluded area so that he may accomplish the dastardly deed. When we take all of the prosecution's evidence, i.e., the injuries AAA sustained, the corroborating testimony of AAA's mother and sister and AAA's categorical identification of appellant as her violator, and stack it up against the appellant's weak defense of denial and alibi, we find no compelling reason to overturn the finding of rape and the identification of the culprit. Verily, we have already ruled that mere inconsistencies in testimony are not fatal to the witness' credibility.[33] Nor can an alibi prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.[34] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find this challenge to be baseless as we fail to see any flaw that would invalidate Rudy's out-of-court identification of the appellants. We see no basis, too, to support the conclusion that the in-court identification - an identification made independently of the out-of court identification - is itself tainted with invalidity.[37] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Alibi as a defense is often viewed with suspicion, because it is inherently weak and unreliable. For this defense to prosper, it must preclude any doubt about the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[19] | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| direct evidence. Thus, the Court is often constrained to take the word of the trial court, and it is only when matters of significance and substance have apparently been overlooked[4] that the findings of the trial court are re-examined and even at times discarded. The case at bar poses no problem in the application of this long established general rule of giving respect to the trial court in its evaluation. Despite her young age, Jenelyn was clearly straightforward in narrating her ordeal before the court below. She testified: "Q Madam witness on November 27, 1996 at noon where were you? | |||||