This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot also demolish the victim's clear and convincing narration and positive identification of her assailant. Denial and alibi are disfavored on account of the facility with which they can be concocted to suit the defense of an accused.[17] In this case, appellant has not even shown that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape , the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages were correctly awarded by the trial court.[38] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Certainly when AAA declared that the accused inserted his sex organ into her private part and she felt pain, there can be no question that there were penetrations in the three (3) incidents and therefore sexual intercourses took place.[24] It is settled that when the issue is the evaluation of the testimony of a witness or his credibility, this Court accords the highest respect and even finality to the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that it committed palpable mistake, misappreciation of facts or grave abuse of discretion. It is the trial court which has the unique advantage of observing first-hand the facial expressions, gestures and the tone of voice of a witness while testifying.[25] There exist no exceptional circumstances in this case such that the Court should depart from the rule. | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| After going over the voluminous records, We find no error in the aforesaid observations of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense.[85] Again, these weak defenses cannot stand against the positive identification and categorical testimony of a rape victim.[86] Clarissa, in this case, as aforesaid, passed the test of credibility in her account of her ordeal; positively identified her assailants; and had no ill-motive to falsely implicate them to the commission of a crime, other than her desire to seek justice for a wrong. Where an alleged rape victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her person, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility.[87] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court was correct in brushing aside appellant's denial and alibi. As a rule, these defenses are negative and self-serving and are always received with caution not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they are easy to fabricate. Lack of defense cannot prevail over and are worthless in the face of the positive and categorical statements of the victim.[51] To be believed, these weak defenses must be buttressed by strong evidence of innocence, otherwise, they are considered self-serving and of no evidentiary value.[52] The appellant's convoluted testimony on the illicit affair between his wife and the latter's stepfather has not been corroborated. | |||||