This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-01-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that Maritess did not actually see who fired the shots is a negative assertion. It is outweighed by the positive and candid declaration of the witness under oath. According to her, the first shot came from behind the trisikad. Upon hearing it, as a natural reaction to a stimulus, Maritess immediately turned her head to where the sound came from. She saw appellant Hormina holding a handgun, an arm's length away from the victim. She also categorically testified that she saw appellant chase the victim and then shoot him to death. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity with human knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.[40] We find it more in accord with human experience that the chasing and the second shooting were mere continuation of the first attack in order to accomplish the assassin's determination to kill. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the eyewitness' assertion as to the identity of the assailant is not tainted with bias, said assertion as to the identity of the malefactor can very well be accepted.[41] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Certain minor variances in the details of a witness' account, more frequently than not, can be badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony.[40] Furthermore, it must be pointed out that "[E]ven where a witness has been found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particulars, it is not required that the whole of his testimony be rejected.[41] The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case."[42] | |||||