This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-01-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's guilt of the crime of simple rape through force or intimidation has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity,[16] P50,000 as moral damages[17] and P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape (or P375,000 to AAA and P125,000 to BBB) is in order. Inasmuch as the minority of both AAA and BBB was not proven and their relationship with appellant was outside the scope of Article 14 of the RPC and Article 266-B of RA No 8353,[18] these circumstances cannot be considered as aggravating circumstances. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. The Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings, unless the trial court overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[10] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[11] Its findings are accorded great respect unless it overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts which, if considered, might affect the result of the case,[12] which circumstance does not obtain in this case. | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found AAA's testimony credible. The trial court held that, "The Court is impressed with the testimony of [AAA] who testified in categorical and straightforward manner and remained consistent throughout her testimony."[36] On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that: The x x x testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Contrary to appellant's submission that the testimony of complainant is not credible and reasonable in itself, We see no reason to deviate from the trial court's determination as to the credibility of complainant's testimony.[37] (Emphasis ours) The evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings, unless it overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[38] In People v. Abellano,[39] the Court held that: The trial court's evaluation of a witness' credibility is accorded the highest respect because it had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court has the strategic position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth and its findings thereon are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. (Emphasis ours) The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial court did not overlook or misconstrue any substantial fact which could have affected the outcome of the case. Montinola's claims involve minor or trifling matters that do not affect the outcome of the case. AAA's testimony was clear, positive, convincing, and consistent: Q Do you remember what unusual incident that [sic] happened to you last October 29, 1999? | |||||