This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The presence or absence of these essential elements deals with factual matters which are best left to the discretion of the trial court to ascertain. As the Court has repeatedly emphasized in many cases, the trial court is in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed firsthand their behavior and manner of testifying during trial.[19] Thus, the reviewing court is generally bound by the trial court's findings where no substantial reason exists that would justify a reversal of the assessments and conclusions drawn by the latter.[20] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Discrediting Mendoza and Estaño as witnesses against Salafranca would be unwarranted. The RTC and the CA correctly concluded that Mendoza and Estaño were credible and reliable. The determination of the competence and credibility of witnesses at trial rested primarily with the RTC as the trial court due to its unique and unequalled position of observing their deportment during testimony, and of assessing their credibility and appreciating their truthfulness, honesty and candor. Absent a substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessment made and conclusions reached by the RTC, the CA as the reviewing court was bound by such assessment and conclusions,[11] considering that the CA as the appellate court could neither substitute its assessment nor draw different conclusions without a persuasive showing that the RTC misappreciated the circumstances or omitted significant evidentiary matters that would alter the result.[12] Salafranca did not persuasively show a misappreciation or omission by the RTC. Hence, the Court, in this appeal, is in no position to undo or to contradict the findings of the RTC and the CA, which were entitled to great weight and respect.[13] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court, therefore, finds appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape. While it has been proven that appellant was the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim and the child was a minor at the time of the incident, the Court cannot convict appellant of qualified rape[26] because the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were not sufficiently alleged in the information. To recall, the information here erroneously alleged that appellant was the stepfather of the victim. Proven during the trial, however, was that appellant was not married to the victim's mother, but was only the common-law spouse of the latter. Following settled jurisprudence,[27] appellant is liable only of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Denial, just like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak, being self-serving negative evidence undeserving of weight in law.[31] To be sure, either gratuitous defense cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.[32] Put a bit differently, the defense of denial or alibi becomes even weaker in the face of an unqualified and positive identification of Achas as complainant's rapist.[33] | |||||