This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is only human for AAA to not be able to readily narrate the exact details of her experience when questioned. The Court has in the past observed that "[i]t would not really be unusual for one to recollect a good number of things about an eventful incident but what should be strange is when one can put to mind everything."[36] As this Court has time and again declared: Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience - a verity born out of human nature and experience. This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. x x x.[37] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We reiterate the doctrine that the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. [20] As a rule, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some weighty and substantial facts or circumstances that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence. [21] Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings. [22] Moreover, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the trial court's findings carry even more weight. In the appeal before us, we find no reason to deviate from the rule. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the allegation regarding AAA's failure to remember the exact date of the first rape, we have already held that rape victims are not expected to mechanically keep tab and give an accurate account of the exact dates of the rape. It is not farfetched for a victim of a harrowing and traumatic encounter to even shut off certain portions of that experience.[31] Behavioral psychology also teaches us that different people react dissimilarly to similar situations. [32] Verily, the exact date of rape is not an essential element of the crime, and the mere failure to give a precise date, let alone an incorrect estimate, will not discredit the testimony of the victim.[33] | |||||
|
2006-08-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-settled that factual findings of trial courts and those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[16] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. As this opportunity is denied the appellate court, the lower court's findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on this Court absent a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts or substance of value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[17] In the instant case, we find nothing in the records which warrants a departure from the findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well settled is the rule that the findings of lower courts which are factual and which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve respect when, as in this case, no glaring errors bordering on gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[31] | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| They also argue that it was contrary to common experience for Wilson not to offer any assistance to his friends or report the matter to the police immediately and for Mario to hold Roel while being stabbed and shot as it would be enough for him to just watch rather than risk getting injured by a wayward thrust or bullet. Appellants cannot expect us to accept these contentions without a shred of supporting validation and reverse their convictions especially when the prevailing evidentiary tenet is that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected in the absence of glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings.[7] | |||||