This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We, likewise, find it incredible for Richelle to contrive a story of rape which would expose herself to a lifetime of shame, allow an examination of her private parts and face public trial.[42] A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. The bare denial of the appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Richelle. Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[43] In the case at bar, the trial court found the testimony of the victim to be trustworthy and convincing. It has been held in a long line of cases that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are afforded great respect, since it is the trial judge who observes and monitors the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses. | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that treachery attended the commission of the crime and that it was merely a generic aggravating and not a qualifying circumstance. As found by the trial court, the attack on the victim was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare and defend himself.[17] However, such modifying circumstance was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[18] Thus, treachery cannot be considered by the Court even as a generic aggravating circumstance. Although the crime took place before the said Rule took effect, it should nevertheless be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the appellant.[19] | |||||