This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and secondly because there is always the possibility that such recantation may later be repudiated.[33] Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it.[34] The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of the witnesses.[35] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In addition, AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Freyna whose medico-legal examination confirmed that AAA was already in a non-virgin state physically. When the victim's testimony of her violation is supported by a physician's findings of penetration, sufficient foundation exists to conclude the existence of carnal knowledge.[28] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant further questions the credibility of Lyzel in enabling him to rape her in two successive days. He contends that after Lyzel was raped for the first time on October 31, 1997, her logical reaction should have been to immediately seek the help of other people; that despite her opportunity to do so, she did not. We are not persuaded. It is a settled rule that the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident.[26] Verily, under emotional stress, the human mind is not expected to follow a predictable path.[27] Indeed, Lyzel must have been shocked and utterly confused by the fact that her own father, committed such an act of bestiality against her. More importantly, it is established by competent evidence that appellant threatened to kill Lyzel if she told anybody about the rape. That alone is sufficient explanation why she did not make known to other people the first time that she was raped by her father. | |||||