This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-08-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate each other on material points, the minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility.[15] Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed. Even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements.[16] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on the basis of the record for the trial judge might have died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth.[23] As far back as the case of Co Tao v. Court of Appeals[24] we have held: "The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and that for that reason the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous." This rule had been followed for quite a long time, and there is no reason to go against the principle now.[25] | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the second assigned error, the fact that Judge Valencia who decided the case was not the one who heard the testimonies of the witnesses would not automatically warrant a reversal of the decision.[33] Such fact constitutes no compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusions, and does not per se render his decision void. It may be true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses. However, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial can not render a valid and just decision. For the judge who was not present during the trial can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[34] | |||||