This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-10-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant has not shown any evidence of improper motive on the part of Wilfredo and Antonio that would have driven them to falsely testify against him. Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[17] | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the testimony of Nemelyn Tulio can be discarded, petitioner's conviction founded on the positive declarations of eyewitness Lorna Bandiola still stands on terra firma. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.[28] People v. Ramos,[29] quoting People v. Toyco,[30] is good authority with the following pronouncement:It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge of murder.[31] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Too, appellant has not shown any evidence of improper motive on the part of prosecution witnesses Belmes and Agbulos that would have driven them to falsely testify against him. In fact, appellant himself declared that he did not know of any reason why Belmes and Agbulos would implicate him in the crime. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[15] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Needless to say, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence.[30] For indeed the trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[31] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses, Balase and Quiling,[34] concerning appellants' actual participation and identification. Although it may be conceded that their testimonies differ in some respects (e.g. to which gate of the auditorium did Alfredo go and the supposed parts of Alfredo's body hit by the blows), yet these differences do not refer to the crux of the matter, which is their presence at the scene and their participation in the commission of the crime. Besides, witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[35] | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses because of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses in the process of unearthing the truth. Thus, except for compelling reasons, we are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[6] | |||||
|
2001-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellate courts are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination - factors which are significant in the evaluation of the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth.[10] We see no reason to depart from this doctrine. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court accords great respect to the factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in their findings.[16] Two (2) vital circumstances however exhort us to appraise the testimonies of the witnesses anew: (a) accused-appellant's continued stay in the barrio after the occurrence of the crime while his co-accused Eulalio Autida sought refuge at another province; and, (b) accused-appellant's act of pursuing the instant appeal when his co-accused Eulalio Autida did not. These circumstances, to our mind, befog the accuracy of accused-appellant's conviction and calls to order an examination of the records and the principles of law applied. | |||||
|
2001-01-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Alibi is defense inherently weak. It can easily be contrived and may only be accepted with great caution and not with precipitate credulity. In the case at bar, Norman Toyco's alibi, which is uncorroborated, does not inspire a scintilla of belief. His acknowledgment that their house and that of the Sumadias are merely less than 100 meters apart (TSN, p. 5, direct of Norman Toyco, Dec. 8, 1997) should be given great weight. They being neighbors at such a short distance, it would not be physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene that evening of January 5, 1995."[8] Evidently, the defense sought to establish the innocence of appellant by four witnesses vis-a-vis that of the prosecution's lone eyewitness. Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[9] The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in charge of murder.[10] Moreover, appellant's twin defenses of denial and alibi have been consistently classified by the Court as weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[11] Appellant who claimed to be asleep in his house which is less than a hundred meters from where the crime happened has not shown said physical impossibility. | |||||