This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-07-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With regard to the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court has time and again abided by the principle that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. Moreover, the supposed inconsistencies of witnesses in recounting the wordings of the threats uttered by petitioner, are much too trivial and inconsequential to put a dent on said witnesses' credibility. As ruled in People v. Cabtalan,[20] "[m]inor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime."[21] Both the trial court and the CA found the prosecution witnesses' candid and straight forward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court sees no reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. People[22] that:Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.[23] | |||||
|
2014-05-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly held that "considering the swiftness of the incident,"[123] there would be slight inconsistencies in their statements. In People v. Adriano Cabrillas,[124] it was previously observed that: It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.[125] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the lower court appreciated treachery, which was alleged in the information, as an aggravating circumstance which qualified the offense to murder. This is proper considering that, even if abuse of superior strength was properly alleged and proven in court, it cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony at issue since it is jurisprudentially settled that when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.[19] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, in contrast to the pronouncements of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we cannot consider abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance in this case. As per jurisprudence, when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.[24] Since there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, in accordance with Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code,[25] it being the lesser penalty between the two indivisible penalties for the felony of murder which is reclusion perpetua to death. | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it has been emphasized that an affidavit taken ex-parte is generally unreliable as oftentimes it is inaccurate.[13] This underscores the weight of the clarification that the prosecution witness made during the trial. Indeed, discrepancies on minor details do not erase but enhance the credibility of either the witness or his testimony. As aptly cited in People v. Cabtalan,[14] minor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Similarly, as held in the case of People v. Laog,[15] where the appellant also raised the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, this Court declared: Nonetheless, this matter raised by appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[16] | |||||