This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-10-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The assessment of credibility of witnesses made by the trial court is generally accorded great weight and respect in view of its unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during their testimonies.[15] In the absence of any matters of substance which may have been overlooked by the trial court, we find no cogent reason to overturn the findings of facts of the trial court.[16] The mere fact that the sole eyewitness presented in court is the brother-in-law of the victim does not affect his credibility. Mere relationship of a witness to the victim, whether by consanguinity or affinity, does not necessarily impair his credibility as a witness nor does it impair his positive and clear testimony and render it unworthy.[17] On the contrary, relationship with a victim would deter a witness from indiscriminately implicating anybody to the crime. His natural and usual interest would be to identify the malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for the death of a relative.[18] More importantly, the eyewitness account as to the manner of the attack and the location of the wounds is corroborated by the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Mendaros.[19] Hence, appellants' bare denials cannot overcome their positive identification by the prosecution witness.[20] | |||||
|
2000-02-10 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Remedios Punzalan's account was bolstered by Celedonio Arandela who testified that he recognized the voice of the one who shouted "Dapa, walang kikilos" as that of ALAGON. The latter contends that it was impossible for this witness to recognize his voice since Celedonio Arandela, Jr. himself testified that on the three occasions that the two met, ALAGON poked his gun at the witness without uttering a word. This contention is belied by Celedonio's testimony that in those three instances when ALAGON would poke his gun at him he spoke to him asking him if he were carrying a gun.[15] At this juncture, it is worthy of mention that over and above the testimony of Celedonio, the eyewitness account of Remedios Punzalan can stand on its own. The well-entrenched rule is that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. It has been held that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered; hence, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.[16] The trial court observed that "Remedios Punzalan elucidated her version of the events leading to the shooting of the two victims in a candid and straightforward manner."[17] | |||||