This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On appeal is the March 5, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03295, affirming the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, of Quezon City, finding appellant Alex Watamama y Esil guilty of violating Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.[3] | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A review of the records of this case shows that the RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.The testimonies of Calma and Zuñiga do not suffer from any serious and material contradictions that can detract from their credibility. Their testimonies are credible as they are replete with details and corroborated on material points by physical evidence and the testimonies of the other prosecution's witnesses. Dr. Celestino categorically testified that Calma was shot at the back and that without timely medical attention he would have died.[18] Zuñiga and Marquez were also very categorical and frank in their testimonies identifying Angeles as the man who shot Calma and who, together with his companions riding in his owner-type jeep, chased Calma and Zuñiga after the shooting. The Court has repeatedly held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referringto minor details, and not on the basic aspects of the crime, do not impair the witness' credibility.[19] These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| [47] People v. Salamat, G.R. No. 103295, 20 August 1993, 225 SCRA 499, 507, citing People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 92600, 18 January 1993. | |||||