"x x x.
"But the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The SC said that on the question of credence between the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, the findings and conclusions of the lower court must be accorded the greatest respect because it had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the witnesses testify.
The SC also found the narration of Eva believable as it was characterized by simplicity and veracity. It yields the impression of a witness revealing the grim ordeal to which she was subjected and finding it difficult but quite necessary to face her tormentors. The emotional stress she was laboring under was quite evident. It cannot be doubted that if she were not thus sexually assaulted, she would not have been bold and brazen enough to accuse not only the man but also the wife as it could have aroused misgivings on the truth of what was narrated by her which was made clear by the couple’s trade of supplying girls to a house of prostitution and by Val’s practice of sampling the “merchandise” even without their consent. It is unbelievable that she could have entertained the thought of imputing to them such a heinous offense if there were no basis for it, considering that they were her compadre and comadre. Besides her testimony was also corroborated by her seven year old son Benjie and by another neighbor who explicitly affirmed that Val and Lisa were the ones who came out from Eva house as he saw them through the light of a lamp."
(People vs. Villamala, G.R. L-41312, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 145).