This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-12-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The CA and the trial court relied on the testimonies of two (2) disinterested witnesses: Gregorio Libao, a retired employee of the NIA, and Anacleto Dicta-an, a resident of Sudipen, La Union. Both testified as to the existence of an old creek which served as the common boundary of the respective properties of the parties, and of the subsequent diversion of the creek to its present position which now cuts through the middle portion of the respondents' property. Petitioners insist, however, that their testimonies are replete with inconsistencies and contradictions which render said testimonies unworthy of belief. The Court disagrees. The two courts below both found their testimonies credible. Matters of credibility of witnesses are best addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court, and this Court generally defers to the trial court's assessment because it has the singular opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their manner of testifying.[9] Besides, as correctly pointed out by the CA, the inconsistencies cited by the petitioners refer to minor and collateral matters which do not affect the credibility of said witnesses. | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In these two cases of rape, the alleged victims were presented by the prosecution and subjected to prolonged cross-examination by the defense. Both victims Lorelie and Joan, stood pat in their accusation against appellant that he abused them sexually. Despite their tender age, the private complainants withstood the grueling direct and cross-examinations with their credibility intact. Rape victims, especially those who are of tender age, would not normally concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of their private parts and undergo a public trial, if they were not motivated solely by the desire to have their ravishers apprehended and punished. As long as their testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused-appellant may be convicted on that sole basis.[66] | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| From another perspective, we have previously held that no mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the trauma resulting from a court case unless she is truly motivated by a desire to penalize the person responsible for her daughter's defilement.[76] It is unnatural for a mother to use her daughter as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma. A mother would not sacrifice the honor of her daughter to give vent to a grudge that would tarnish the latter's reputation forever.[77] These principles are applicable in the present case, which involves not only the daughter of Imelda Ibarrientos but her niece as well. | |||||
|
2003-04-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The complainant's testimony is, moreover, supported by the medical examination on the complainant conducted by a medico-legal officer ten days after the incident. The medical report showed healed lacerations in the complainant's hymen.[30] Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[31] It is settled that when the victim's claim of rape is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[32] | |||||