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