This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| on her hymen and the presence of sperm cells in her vaginal canal. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.[29] In rape, the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will, or without her consent.[30] Additionally, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code includes a victim who is suffering from some form of mental abnormality or deficiency, | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Angela Ong pinpointing appellant as the person who robbed her at knifepoint and the testimony of Gina Abacan on the fate she suffered at the hands of appellant. Appellant's defense of alibi, which is basically weak, does not gain vigor from the testimony of a close relative, namely his spouse.[52] No error was committed by the trial court in disbelieving his alibi. As to the monetary awards granted by the trial court, modification is in order. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[53] indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 should also be awarded in favor of the rape victim, Gina Abacan, without | |||||
|
2000-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| (1) The reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) The findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) A witness who testified in clear, positive, and convincing manner and remained consistent on cross-examination, is a credible witness.[12] Applying these guidelines, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of private complainant's credibility. Appellant has shown no reason whatsoever for us to doubt her testimony. The records show that private complainant testified as to her ravishment in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner. She positively identified appellant as her rapist. She was consistent in her narration of how she was dragged inside appellant's house, boxed into submission, and ravished.[13] We find that private complainant did not waiver in her account of her harrowing experience under intense and grueling cross-examination[14] Absent any showing that the trial court's assessment of her credibility was flawed, we are bound by its findings.[15] | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses, case law has established the following doctrinal guidelines: first, the appellate tribunal will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case; second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand; and third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[31] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "Third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness."[18] | |||||