This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Such argument must fail. Inconsistencies in the narration of the prosecution witnesses on minor details do not affect the weight of their testimonies. Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot be expected to be uniform to the last details.[49] Moreover, the testimonies of witnesses to a crime could not be expected to be error-free all throughout. Different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident.[50] Even the most truthful witnesses can make mistakes or innocent lapses that do not necessarily affect their credibility.[51] Thus, findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal, and the rule is not changed simply because of some inconsequential inconsistencies that are discovered upon a fault-finding scrutiny of the records.[52] | |||||
|
2002-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| their credibility and properly appreciate the relative weight of evidence.[13] Petitioner also argues that Deutsch should not have been acquitted since the evidence shows that the latter was an active participant in the conspiracy perpetrated to defraud her. She claims that conspiracy was more than sufficiently established by the following | |||||