This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that the medical findings are inconsistent with and do not support the charges of rape. As admitted by his own expert witness, Dr. Baladad, the mucosal irritation found in complainant's private organ may be attributed to any hard object, including a hard penis placed on the vaginal opening.[31] He likewise stated that a large penis may not be able to easily penetrate the sexual organ of a female especially if the vagina is not sufficiently elastic.[32] This means that a male organ may be able to penetrate the opening of the labia but may not necessarily cause any laceration to the vagina and/or the hymen. This could explain why no lacerations were found on her female organ. This is also consistent with the testimony of the victim that the penis of the appellant was not able to completely penetrate her private organ.[33] As law and jurisprudence now stand, however, complete penetration of the female genitalia is not required for a finding that rape was committed on a girl. Much less is there a need to pierce the hymen and thereby destroy her virginity. Penile contact with the female organ's labia suffices to consummate rape.[34] | |||||