This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have oftentimes ruled that the Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[51] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[25] This is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses while they are on the witness stand. The rule admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or misconstrued by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of facts.[26] None, however, exists in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2003-10-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Excluding the peripheral motives and actuations of the secondary players in this drama, we are once again tasked with the duty of weighing the testimony of the victim as against the appellant. As a general rule the trial court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and should largely remain undisturbed.[32] On review, an appellate court may reverse these findings when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or misinterpreted that could affect the result of a case.[33] It is on this ground that we find that the trial court committed a reversible error in completely disregarding all other evidence contrary to what was deemed as the irrefutable testimony of the complainant. | |||||
|
2001-06-25 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| The failure of REGINA to exhibit the emotional and physical trauma evident in a rape victim will not militate against the fact that she was ravished. There was nothing incomprehensible about REGINA's reaction. We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. One person's spontaneous response may be aggression while another person's reaction may be cold indifference.[18] | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that the prosecution has the burden of clearly proving the allegations in the information especially in death penalty cases, as in the case at bar, where the life of a human being hangs in the balance. The death penalty cannot therefore be imposed in this case inasmuch as the alleged age of the rape victim which would have qualified the crime of rape was not proven by evidence independent of the testimonies of the victim and her mother. As often repeated, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[48] Thus, accused-appellant should only be held liable for simple rape, and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Anent the civil liability of JONNIE, the trial court merely ordered the payment of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 but did not award the payment of moral damages. Thus, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, JONNIE should be ordered to pay the amount of P50,000 as moral damages.[24] Moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between 13 and 19 years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche. It may be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and the like.[25] | |||||