This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Contrary to appellant's posture, the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the one who heard the testimony of the complaining victim does not automatically taint the trial court's decision or ipso facto render it erroneous.[26] Appellant argues that since the judge who wrote the assailed decision was not the one who presided over the actual trial and observed Rhoda's demeanor, "his findings on the credibility of the private complainant are not binding upon the appellate courts." Appellant stresses that "the trial court erred in completely believing the testimony of private complainant." | |||||