Rule 122-125
Transcript of Rule 122-125
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
1/8
Rule 122 - Appeal
Sec. 1 - Who may Appeal
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, PETITINER, VS.SP!SES PE"RIT BER#$ AN" GLRIA BER#$,
RESPN"ENTS.G.R. N. 1%1&12, Sep'em(e) 2*, 2++%, IRST
"IVISIN, ARPI, .)/me0 E'aa 'h)ou3h al/4ca'/o5 o a pu(l/c
6ocume5' - Loca'/o50 #a5/la
ac'
Based on a complaint fled by petitioner Philippine
Savings Bank (PSB), respondents Pedrito and Gloria Bermoy
were charged with estaa thru alsifcation o a public
document in the !", #anila, Branch $%& 'ccording to the
complaint, the said accused prepared, orged and alsifed or
caused to be prepared, orged and alsifed an owners copy
o !"! o& *+-$-, which is an imitation o, and similar to
the !"! o& *+-$-.issued by the egister o /eeds or the
"ity o #anila pertaining to a parcel o land containing an
area o $0+ s1m&, located in #alate*& 'ter the prosecution
presented its case and rested, the deense, instead o
presenting its evidence, the deense fled, with leave o court,
a demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecutionailed to identiy respondent spouses as the accused$&
!he trial court ruled in avor o the accused
dismissing the case, reasoning that there is nothing in the
transcript (o the testimonies presented by the prosecution)
which would slightly indicate that they identifed the accused
as the persons who obtained a loan rom the PSB and
e2ecuted the corresponding documents& !he decision was
a3irmed by the "', stating that the ailure o the prosecution
to point in open court to the persons o the accused as the
same persons who presented themselves to the Bank is a
atal omission, even i the trial court erred in granting the
demurrer, the same can no longer be reviewed either on
appeal or on petition or certiorari or it would violate the
right o the accused against double 4eopardy&
Iue
56 double 4eopardy had attached in the case herein
barring appeal
"ec//o5
7es, or double 4eopardy to apply, Section ule .. re1uires
the ollowing elements in the frst criminal case8
a !he complaint or inormation or other ormal charge
was su3icient in orm and substance to sustain a
conviction9b !he court had 4urisdiction9c !he accused had been arraigned and had pleaded9
and
1in possession o the spouses :/G' and :;.0-.@$& !hus, the =normation o
estaa through alsifcation o a public document against
respondent spouses was su3icient in orm and substance to
sustain a conviction& !he trial court had 4urisdiction over the
case and the persons o respondent spouses& esponden
spouses were arraigned during which they entered not
guilty pleas& Cinally, the criminal case was dismissed or
insu3iciency o evidence& "onse1uently, the right not to be
placed twice in 4eopardy o punishment or the same o3ense
became vested on respondent spouses&
!he right against double 4eopardy can be invoked i
(a) the accused is charged with the same o3ense in two
separate pending cases, or (b) the accused is prosecuted
anew or the same o3ense ater he had been convicted or
ac1uitted o such o3ense, or (c) 'he p)oecu'/o5 appeal)om a 7u63me5' /5 'he ame cae& !he last is based onSection * (Sec& .), ule .** o the ules o "ourt which
provides that any party may appeal rom a fnal 4udgment or
order, e2cept i the accused would be placed thereby in
double 4eopardy&
?ere, petitioner seeks a review o the 'pril .@@%
6rder dismissing the criminal case or insu3iciency o
evidence& =t is in e3ect appealing rom a 4udgment o
ac1uittal& =n terms o substantive law, the "ourt will not pass
upon the propriety o the order granting the /emurrer to
:vidence on the ground o insu3iciency o evidence and the
conse1uent ac1uittal o the accused, as it will place the latter
in double 4eopardy& Generally, the dismissal o a crimina
case resulting in ac1uittal made with the e2press consent o
the accused or upon his own motion will not place the
accused in double 4eopardy&
?owever, this rule admits o two e2ceptions, namely
insu3iciency o evidence and denial o the right to a speedy
trial& =n the case herein, the resolution o the /emurrer to
:vidence was based on the ground o insu3iciency o
evidence& ?ence, it clearly alls under one o the admitted
e2ceptions to the rule& /ouble 4eopardy thereore, applies to
this case and this "ourt is constitutionally barred rom
reviewing the order ac1uitting the accused-&Petition /enied&
PEPLE THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTI-APPELLEE,
VS. NIL LENES, A!SE"-APPELLANT.
ATS
!he accused ilo ;eones was convicted by the trial court o $
counts o rape and $ counts o acts o lasciviousness& !he
4!he rule barring appeals rom Dudgments o ac1uittal
admits o an e8cep'/o5& Such, however, is narrowly drawnand is limited to the case where the trial court acted with
3)a9e a(ue o 6/c)e'/o5 amou5'/53 'o lac: o) e8ceo 7u)/6/c'/o5 6ue 'o a 9/ola'/o5 o 6ue p)ocei&e& theprosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or
that the trial was a sham&
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
2/8
accused did not appeal the said decision and thereater
started to serve sentence, but the prosecution fled a notice
o appeal& !he prosecution contends that the penalties or the
$ counts o rape imposed upon the accused are not in accord
with &'& o& A0@ and should each be increased to death9
while the penalties meted out or the $ counts o acts o
lasciviousness are erroneous pursuant to &'& o& A.+ and
should each be increased&
ISS!E
"an the prosecution validly appeal to increase the
penalty imposed upon the accused without running aoul to
the right o the accused against double 4eopardy
R!LING
6& Section ., ule .** o the evised ules o
"riminal Procedure provides8
;Sec'/o5 1. Who may appeal.- A5y pa)'y may appeal)om a 7u63me5' o) 45al o)6e), u5le 'he accue6 I#EL"ALI?!IGAN
G.R. No. 1=%1+&-1=, 1@ "ecem(e) 2+++,EN BANC, PerCuriam
Dose Pa4o was ound guilty beyond reasonable doubto $ counts o rape and * counts o acts o lasciviousnesswhile his co>accused, =melda ;i1uigan, was ound guiltybeyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice o the crime o
rape& !he victims are Pa4os daughters, ''' (.- yHo) andBBB (.* yHo), assisted by their aunt, """&
/ue to the imposition o the death penalty in the $criminal cases, the /ecision o the !" imposing the deathpenalty therein is now beore us on automatic review&
ISS!E0
#ay the court consider through automatic appeal althe convictions even i the penalty o some o the convictionsis not deathI
R!LING0
6& !he "ourt resolves to dismiss the appealswherein the !" convicted P'D6 o two counts o acts olasciviousness and sentenced him to ten (.+) years and one(.) day o prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (.) yearsand our (-) months o reclusion temporal as ma2imum oreach count, considering that P'D6 ailed to fle notices oappeal or said cases&
5e likewise dismiss the appeal o P'D6s co>accused;=JF=G', or the reason that she similarly ailed to fle anotice o appeal o the 4udgment convicting her as anaccomplice to the crime o rape& The appeal 'o 'heSup)eme ou)' /5 cae
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
3/8
ailed, neglected, and still reuses, ails and neglects to
comply therewith, all to the damage and pre4udice o the
o3ended party&
!" rendered its decision fnding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt o the crimes charged&
'ppellant fled a motion or reconsideration o the
decision& Cinding no merit in the motion, the trial court, on
+$ 'pril .@@0, denied a reconsideration o its decision&
'ppellant fled an instant appeal to the Supreme
"ourt, reiterating her assertion that the trial court has erredin giving credence to the testimonies o the complaining
witnesses and in fnding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt
o the various o3enses she has been charged with by the
prosecution
ISS!E0
WN a5 /5'a5' appeal 'o 'he Sup)eme ou)' / p)ope)/5 'h/ cae
R!LING0
$ES. The appeal ma6e 6/)ec'ly 'o 'h/ ou)' o'he e9e5'ee5 cae, each o
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
4/8
=n several cases, all the accused appealed rom their4udgments o conviction but the conviction became fnal ande2ecutory& evertheless, the "ourt still applied to them theavorable 4udgment in avour o their co>accused& 'lthoughthe verdict o guilt with respect to ;im had already becamefnal and e2ecutory, the ac1uittal o Guingging should beapplied to him given that it is a avorable 4udgment&
PEPLE THE PHILIPPINES 9. !LIAN ESAJ y"EEN, VIRGILI !SANA y T#E, a56 ERR$ LPE
ASABAAN
G.R. No. 12&D%*-%@, a5ua)y 1&, 2++1
"rimes8 violation o the dangerous drug act and illegal
possession o frearms and ammunition
Place8 #akati "ity
!"8 all o the accused were guilty
S" on the appeal o Fsana and ;opeE or violation o the
dangerous drug act8 ac1uitted Fsana and ;opeE
ATS0
:scaMo, together with accused>appellants Fsana and
;opeE, was charged beore the !" o #akati "ity in
"riminal "ase o& @0>@$A with violation o ' A-*0 (!he
/angerous /rug 'ct), or the possession o $&$.- kilograms
o ?ashish& :scaMo and Fsana were also charged with
violation o P/ .%AA or illegal possession o frearms and
ammunition in "riminal "ases os& @0>@$ and @0>@$%,
respectively& !he trial court convicted all three in "riminal
"ase o& @0>@$A, :scaMo in "riminal "ase o& @0>@$, and
Fsana in "riminal "ase o& @0>@$%& :scaMo fled a otice o
'ppeal but he withdrew the same by motion, which was
granted by the trial court& 5hile Fsana and ;opeE fled their
notice o appeal to the S" or the "riminal "ase o& @0>@$A
(violation o !he /angerous /rug 'ct), thereupon the "ourt
ac1uitted them or the said crime&
?ence this present motion o :scaMo, praying that
the "ourts /ecision ac1uitting 7oung, the treasurer, eitherby implication or e2pressed domineering words, alluded tothe accused as a alsifer which blinded the accused
appellant to e2treme anger and rage, thus leading him to slap!anco>7oung O the alleged name caller&
!he #e!" ound petitioner guilty o simple slanderby deed and sentenced him to pay a fne o P..+&++Petitioner appealed& =t appears that the parties were re1uiredto fle their memoranda by the !", but petitioner fledinstead a motion to withdraw his appeal and paid the fne oP..+&++ imposed in the 4udgment o the #!"& !" denied hismotion and gave petitioner ten (.+) days within which to flehis memorandum, but petitioner insisted on the withdrawao his appeal, fling or this purpose a motion orreconsideration o the order denying his motion towithdrawal appeal& !" denied reconsideration and rendereda decision fnding petitioner guilty o grave slander by deedPetitioner fled a petition or review, which the "ourt o
'ppeals dismissed& ?ence this petition&
Iue0
=s the "' correct in dismissing the petition or reviewI
Hel607es
!he "ourt o 'ppeals correctly ruled, the withdrawao appeal is not a matter o right, but a matter which lies inthe sound discretion o the court and the appellate court& =nthis case, petitioner fled a motion to withdraw his appealonly on Dune A, .@%0, ater he had been re1uired to fle hismemorandum and ater his counsel had received thememorandum o the prosecution& 'pparently, he realiEed thathis appeal was likely to result in the imposition o a higherpenalty and he wanted to avoid that possibility& !heprosecution in act urged in its memorandum that petitioner
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
5/8
be held guilty o grave slander by deed (not 4ust simpleslander as did the #e!") and demanded that the ma2imumo the penalty be imposed on him considering theaggravating circumstances& Fnder the present ule, thewithdrawal o appeal may be allowed beore 4udgment o thecase on appeal& ?owever, as the egional !rial "ourt said,even i no similar limitation as to the period or thewithdrawal o appeal is provided in the new ule, ater theparties in this case had been re1uired to fle theirmemoranda and the memorandum o the prosecution hadbeen fled and a copy served on appellant, it was too late orpetitioner to move or the withdrawal o the appeal& =t was
apparent that petitioners motion was intended to rustrate apossible adverse decision on his appeal& !hat is what e2actlyhappened in this case& 5ithdrawal o the appeal at that stagewould allow an apparent error and possibly an in4ustice to gouncorrected& Dustice is due as much to the State O the Peopleo the Philippines O as to the accused&
Rule 12
Sec. @ - "/m/al o appeal o) a(a56o5me5'o) a/lu)e 'o p)oecu'e
NIJ #ASAS y #ILAN 9. PEPLE THEPHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 1DD=1=, "ecem(e) 1&, 2++D, ARPI, .
ATS0
Petitioner iMo #asas and co>accused Gerry 6ng
(6ng) were charged beore the egional !rial "ourt o
"alamba, #isamis 6ccidental, Branch $A (!">Branch
$A) with violation o the "omprehensive /angerous /rugs
'ct o *++* or having in their possession one sachet o
shabu and or selling two sachets with two strips o
aluminum oil to the poseur buyer& Fpon arraignment,
petitioner, assisted by a lawyer rom the Public 'ttorneys
63ice (P'6), pleaded not guilty to the crime charged&
'ter trial, the !" rendered 4udgment fnding petitioner
guilty as charged and sentencing him to su3er the penalty o
lie imprisonment and a fne o P0++,+++ without subsidiaryimprisonment in case o insolvency& !he !" ac1uitted co>
accused 6ng or ailure o the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt& Petitioner seasonably appealed to
the "ourt o 'ppeals but the latter dismissed the appeal or
ailure to fle the appellants brie within the re1uired period&
6n motion or reconsideration, petitioner, thru the P'6,
contended that Section % o ule .*- admits o an e2ception,
that is, where the appellant is represented by counsel de
ofcio&
ISS!E0
56 the "ourt o 'ppeals ailed to consider the e2ception indismissing the appeal&
R!LING0
7:S, 5e take note o the esolution dated **
September *++A where the "ourt o 'ppeals declared that
petitioners Kappeal is deemed 'B'/6:/ and
accordingly /=S#=SS:/ or ailure to fle the re1uired
'ppellants Brie&L =t cited KSection .(e), ule 0+ o the ules
o "ourtL as its basis or dismissing the appeal& !his is
erroneous& ule 0+ is under the ules o "ivil Procedure&
Since the instant case is a criminal case, the appropriate rule
is ound in the evised ules o "riminal Procedure&
's ground or the petition, petitioner invokes
Section % o ule .*- o the evised ules o "rimina
Procedure and contends that he was represented by counse
de ofcio and that he was not urnished a prior notice to
show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed
!he "ourt o 'ppeals outrightly dismissed petitioners
appeal without looking into the merits o the case and
disregarded the e2ception under Section % o ule .*-Petitioner points out that a mere reading o the decision o
the !"will reveal several glaring errors which necessitate a
review o the case&
Section % o ule .*- o the evised ules o "rimina
Procedure provides8
S:"& %& /ismissal o appeal or abandonment or
ailure to prosecute& >!he "ourt o 'ppeals may,
upon motion o the appellee or motu proprio
and with notice to the appellant in either case,
dismiss the appeal i the appellant ails to fle his
brie within the time prescribed by this ule, e2cept
where the appellant is represented by a counsel de
ofcio&
!he provision is clear and unambiguous& Section %
provides or an e2ception in the dismissal o appeal or
ailure to fle the appellants brie, that is, where the
appellant is represented by a counsel de ofcio& !his
notwithstanding, also under Section %, a criminal case may
be dismissed by the "ourt o 'ppeals motu proprio and with
notice to the appellant i the latter ails to fle his brie within
the prescribed time& !he phrase Kwith notice to the
appellantL means that a notice must frst be urnished the
appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed& o notice was given to petitioner to this e3ect&
Besides, petitioner, in his motion or reconsideration
reiterated to the court that it cannot Korder the dismissal o
the appeal without prior notice to the appellant&L
' healthy respect or petitioners rights should
caution courts against motu proprio dismissals o
appeals, especially in criminal cases where the liberty o
the accused is at stake& !he rules allowing motu proprio
dismissals o appeals merely coner a power and do no
impose a duty9 and the same are not mandatory but merely
directory which thus re1uire a great deal o
circumspection, considering all the attendant
circumstances& "ourts are not e2actly impotent to enorce
their orders, including those re1uiring the fling o
appellants brie& !his is precisely the raison detre or
the courts inherent contempt power& #otu proprio
dismissals o appeals are thus not always called or& 'lthough
the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural, right, it is an
essential part o the 4udicial system and courts should
proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party o
thisprerogative, but instead, a3ord every party>litigant the
amplest opportunity or the proper and 4ust disposition o his
cause, reed rom the constraints o technicalities& #ore so
must this be in criminal cases where, as here, the appellant is
an indigent who could ill>a3ord the services o a counsel de
parte&
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
6/8
Sec. 11 - Scope o u63me5'
LREN SE 9. !RT APPEALS andPEPLE THE PHILIPPINES
G&& o& ;>$%0%. #arch $., .@A
6n Cebruary %, .@A%, at the poblacion o
Cloridablanca, Pampanga, petitioner Dose was arrested by the
local police& Several criminal cases against him to wit8 illegal
discharge o frearm, robbery and illegal possession o
e2plosives& Dose was ac1uitted or illegal discharge o frearmand robbery, but convicted or illegal possession o the hand
grenade that was ound on his person at the time o his
arrest&
'ter promulgation o the 4udgment, petitioner on
that same day fled his notice o appeal& ine days thereater,
petitioner fled a motion praying that the case be reopened to
permit him to present, pursuant to a reservation he had made
in the course o the trial, a permit to possess the hand
grenade in 1uestion& !he trial court denied the motion mainly
on the ground that it had lost 4urisdiction over the case in
view o the perection o the appeal by the accused&
!he "' a3irmed the fndings o act and the
4udgment o conviction o the court a 1uo& Corthwith, Dosefled with the S" this petition or review which was denied
outright& ' motion or reconsideration was fled&
!he Solicitor General opposed the granting o the
oregoing motion or reconsideration it being admitted by
petitioner that the evidence sought to be introduced by him
at the new trial is not newly discovered evidence, the denial
o the new trial visibly papers as correct& ?owever, a
#aniestation was submitted by the Solicitor General ater
making pertinent in1uiries rom the P" "hie, Gen& Cidel $A>A% and "ode
anie Saari with e2piration on /ecember $., .@A%&
Iue0
/id respondent appellate court commit an error o
law and gravely abuse its discretion when it denied
petitioners motion or new trial or the reception o (.) the
written permit o petitioner to possess and use handgrenade,
and (*) the written appointment o petitioner as P" agent
with "ode o& P>$A>A% and code ame Saari (both
documents are dated $. Danuary .@A%)I
Hel60
7es, !he "' is correct in its fndings that the
evidence sought to be presented by the petitioner do not all
under the category o newly>discovered evidence because the
same O his alleged appointment as an agent o the Philippine
"onstabulary and a permit to possess a handgrenade O were
supposed to be known to petitioner and e2isting at the time
o trial and not discovered only thereater&
=t is indeed an established rule that or a new trial to
be granted on the ground o newly discovered evidence, it
must be shown that (a) the evidence was discovered ater
trial9 (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with the e2ercise o reasonable
diligence9 (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative
corroborative, or impeaching9 and (d) it must go to the merits
as ought to produce a di3erent result i admitted&
?owever, petitioner herein does not 4ustiy his
motion or a new trial on newly discovered evidence, but
rather on broader grounds o substantial 4ustice under Sec
.., ule .*- o the ules o "ourt which provides8
Power o appellate court on appeal& O Fpon appeal
rom a 4udgment o the "ourt o Cirst =nstance, the appellate
court may a3irm or modiy the 4udgment and increase or
reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the
case to the "ourt o Cirst =nstance or new trial or retrial, or
dismiss the case&
Petitioner asserts, and correctly so, that the
authority o respondent appellate court over an appealed
case is broad and ample enough to embrace situations as the
instant case where the court may grant a new trial or a
retrial or reasons other than that provided in Section .$ o
the same ule, or Section *, ule .*. o the ules o "ourt
5hile Section .$, ule .*-, and Section *, ule .*., provide
or specifc grounds or a new trial, i&e& newly discovered
evidence, and errors o law or irregularities committed
during the trial& Section .., ule .*- 1uoted above does notso speciy, thereby leaving to the sound discretion o the
court the determination, on a case to case basis, o what
would constitute meritorious circumstances warranting a
new trial or re>trial&
"haracteristically, a new trial has been described as
a new invention to temper the severity o a 4udgment or
prevent the ailure o 4ustice&
Petitioner cites certain peculiar circumstances
obtaining in the case which may be classifed as e2ceptiona
enough to warrant a new trial i only to a3ord him an
opportunity to establish his innocence o the crime charged&
!hus O petitioner was acing a criminal prosecution
or illegal possession o a handgrenade in the court below& ?eclaimed to be an agent o the Philippine "onstabulary with a
permit to possess e2plosives such as the handgrenade in
1uestion& ?owever, he ound himsel in a situation where he
had to make a choice O reveal his =dentity as an undercover
agent o the Philippine "onstabulary assigned to perorm
intelligence work on subversive activities and ace possible
reprisals or even li1uidation at the hands o the dissidents
considering that Cloridablanca the site o the incident, was in
the heart o ?uklandia, or ride on the hope o a possible
e2oneration or ac1uittal based on insu3iciency o the
evidence o the prosecution& 5ithout revealing his =dentity as
an agent o the Philippine "onstabulary, he claimed beore
the trial 4udge that he had a permit to possess the
handgrenade and prayed or time to present the same& !hepermit however could not be produced because it would
reveal his intelligence work activities& "ame the 4udgment o
conviction and with it the staggering impact o a fve>year
imprisonment& !he competent authorities then realiEed that
it was un4ust or this man to go to 4ail or a crime he had not
committed, hence, came the desired evidence concerning
petitioners appointment as a Philippine "onstabulary agent
and his authority to possess a handgrenade or the protection
o his person, but, it was too late according to the trial court
because in the meantime the accused had perected his
appeal&
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
7/8
Dudgment o conviction set aside, case remanded to
the court a 1uo or a new trial only or purpose o allowing
accused to present additional evidence in his deense&
Rule 12% - P)oce6u)e /5 'he Sup)eme ou)'
Sec. = - "ec//o5 / op/5/o5 / eually 6/9/6e6
PEPLE THE PHILIPPINESv& RLAN"A#RAGA
G&& o& .%+AA QCormerly G&& os& .0+-*+>*.R Cebruary A,*++%
amoraga was charged with ape, as amended by
Section * o &'& o& A0@ and &'& o& %$0$ in two
inormations& 'ppellant is the second cousin o '''s mother
who re1uented, and on occasions spent the night in, their
house&''' recounted that the frst rape occurred sometime
in Dune .@@AOa date o which ''' was certain because it
was the opening o school& 't @8++ that night, while she was
ast asleep in her room with her seven>year old sister, she
was surprised to fnd that appellant was already on top o
her& =n that instant, she realiEed that appellant had no more
clothes on and that he had already removed her own short
pants and panties& 'ppellant inserted his fnger and then his
penis in her vagina and started pumping& ''' elt pain in her
genitalia&
'ppellant kept on abusing her many times more
since then& !he last time was on ovember .@@, a date
that she likewise could not orget because it was the eve o
her ninth birthday& ''' conessed her ordeal to her mother
who in turn lost no time in reporting the incident to the
barangay authorities and then submitting her daughter or
medical e2amination&
'ppellant denied the charges& !he trial courtdismissed appellants alibi and accordingly sentenced him to
su3er the penalty o reclusion perpetuaor each o the two
rapes alleged and proved, as well as to indemniy ''',
likewise or each count&
!he case was directly appealed to the "ourt
pursuant to Section $ and Section .+ o ule .**, Section .$
o ule .*- and Section $ o ule .*0 o the ules on
"riminal Procedure& Pursuant toPeople v. !ateo, the case
was transerred to the "ourt o 'ppeals or intermediate
review& "' a3irmed the fndings and conclusion o the
court a "uobut modiying the award o damages&
ISS!E8
=s there merit to the appealI
HEL"8
one& 't the heart o almost all o rape cases is the
issue o credibility o witnesses& !his is primarily because the
conviction or ac1uittal o the accused depends entirely on the
credibility o the victims testimony as only the participants
therein can testiy to its occurrence& !he manner o assigning
values to declarations o witnesses on the witness stand is
best and most competently perormed by the trial 4udge who
has the uni1ue and unmatched opportunity to observe the
witnesses and assess their credibility by the
various indiciaavailable but not reTected on record& !he
demeanor o the person on the stand can draw the line
between act and ancy, or evince i the witness is lying or
telling the truth& !hus, when the 1uestion arises as to which
o the conTicting versions o the prosecution and the deense
is worthy o belie, the assessment o trial courts is generally
given the highest degree o respect i not fnality&
"onviction or rape thereore may lie based solely onthe testimony o the victim i the latters testimony is
credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course o things& =n scrutiniEing such
credibility, 4urisprudence has established the ollowing
doctrinal guidelines8 (.) the reviewing court will not disturb
the fndings o the lower court unless there is a showing that
it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some act or
circumstance o weight and substance that could a3ect the
result o the case9 (*) the fndings o the trial court pertaining
to the credibility o witnesses are entitled to great respect
and even fnality as it had the opportunity to e2amine their
demeanor when they testifed on the witness stand9 and ($) a
witness who testifed in a clear, positive and convincing
manner and remained consistent on cross>e2amination is acredible witness&
'''s account o her harrowing e2perience is trustworthy
and convincing as there is nary an indication in the records
that her testimony should be seen in a suspicious light& 6n
the contrary, the records do reveal that ''' testifed in a
candid and straightorward manner and in act remained
resolute and unswerving even on cross>e2amination, able as
she was to withstand all the rigors o the case including the
medical e2amination and the trial that ollowed& =ndeed, it is
inconceivable or a child to concoct a sordid tale o so serious
a crime as rape at the hands o a close kin and sub4ect hersel
to the stigma and embarrassment o a public trial, i her
motive were other than an earnest desire to seek 4ustice&
'ppellant o3ers an alibi to evade liability& 5hile he
claims the impossibility o his having committed the rapes on
the ground that he was on those dates employed in araway
places, he nevertheless admitsOand so does his witness, BBB
Othat the place where he retired ater work and the place
where the rapes occurred were only two or three kilometers
away rom each other& o other principle in criminal law
4urisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the weakest o
all deenses as it is prone to acile abrication& =t is thereore
received in court with much caution and or it to prevail, the
accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that
it was physically impossible or him to have been at the scene
o the crime when it happened, and not merely that he wassomewhere else& !he records show that such is not the case
here as appellant ailed to adduce an iota o satisactory
evidence that it was physically impossible or him to be in
'''s house at or about the same time the rape occurred&
"' /ecision a3irmed&
-
7/26/2019 Rule 122-125
8/8