This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Appellant's reliance on the affidavit of Flores in order to cast doubt on her testimony is futile. The Court has consistently ruled that discrepancies between the statements in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily downgrade the latter.[46] Ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, frequently prepared by administering officers, and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said.[47] Almost always, the latter would simply sign such documents after being read to them.[48] Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.[49] | |||||
|
2003-10-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, who has not given any provocation. It is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[38] Aquilio did not provoke Alejandro; it was Alejandro who rudely and drunkenly interrupted the quiet and restful evening Aquilio was enjoying. He even attempted to enter the house without being invited and without the door being opened for him. Clearly, because of his drunken condition, he was not welcome. After Aquilio told him to go home, a certain quietude descended into the night, a lull which Alejandro used as a cover to pursue his plan to kill Aquilio. He doubly violated the sanctity of Aquilio's abode when he trespassed it by entering through the kitchen door and then killing Aquilio. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the supposed deficiency in Laila's sworn statement, we have frequently observed that a sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to be a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant.[21] Being taken ex parte, a sworn statement is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestions and inquiries.[22] While her sworn statement may have been scanty on details, Laila testified sufficiently on relevant matters on the stand. She testified that she not only saw Abelardo and his companion, whom she later identified in court as the accused-appellant Porferio Esguerra, walking towards Prudencio's house; she also recounted seeing Porferio enter Prudencio's house and fire successive shots at Prudencio.[23] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This contention has no merit. The conclusions of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the witnesses are in the first place generally accorded great respect by this Court because of the trial court's unique position which enables it to observe the demeanor of the witness on the stand. Only if it is shown that its evaluation is arbitrary or that it has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, would affect the outcome of the case would its findings be overturned.[25] This is not the case here. | |||||
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Besides, it must be remembered that a sworn statement will not always disclose all the facts of the offense charged and sometimes even incorrectly describe some of the material occurrences narrated. A sworn statement is hardly accurate, if not incomplete, as it is invariably prepared by a third person who customarily rewords and rephrases statements given to him by the affiant.[17] In any case, the seeming inconsistency was satisfactorily explained by Venus who testified that she was very confused following the senseless death of her husband, perhaps mulling over the premature orphanhood of her very young children. | |||||
|
2001-10-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To begin with, it is well-settled that the conclusions of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the witnesses are generally accorded great respect by this Court because the trial court is in a unique position to observe their demeanor on the witness stand. Only if it is shown that the trial court's evaluation is arbitrary or that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, would affect the outcome of the case would its findings be overturned.[12] That is not so in these cases. | |||||