This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the credibility of AAA's declarations against appellant as well as that of other prosecution witnesses, we see no cogent reason to veer away from the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People v. Morante,[14] we elaborated on this often reiterated doctrine in this manner: [W]hen the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals]. (Emphases omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court is convinced that the testimony of AAA positively identifying Cruz as the one who sexually abused her is worthy of belief. The clear, consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA unrelentingly established how Cruz sexually molested her on November 6, 2007 with the use of force, threat and intimidation. Indeed, "[a] rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party."[20] | |||||