This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As often repeated, discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witness. Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford her a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/affidavits.[34] More so, what is important is the fact that AAA was able to establish that she was, indeed, raped by the appellant on 24 July 2006. | |||||
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In order to convict an accused, the circumstances of the case must exclude all and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. What is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that the accused committed the crime. [35] It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has indeed been committed by the person on trial that the judgment will be for conviction. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Such an argument fails to impress as discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witness. "Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when the affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/affidavits."[18] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant failed to cast doubt on Mrs. Adelan's positive statements. While Mrs. Adelan's testimony had some inconsistencies with her sworn statement, like the precise location of Galvez's neck wound, these inconsistencies refer only to minor matters. Minor discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit a witness,[27] especially if they refer to matters that have no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. The inconsistencies being trivial and minor, they cannot blunt the impact of complainant's testimony. Considering that she was recounting details of an experience so harrowing, frightening and painful to recall, it is reasonable to expect her to fall into minor lapses. Terrified and agitated, Mrs. Adelan could not understandably observe and commit to memory the exact details of the assault on her husband. What matters is that appellant failed to refute her main assertion that she saw appellant and Galvez stab her husband when the latter tried to stop them from robbing the Adelans' house. | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he was the perpetrator of the crime. He claims he was not conclusively identified and the alleged fatal weapon was not positively tested. True, prosecution witnesses did not positively identify appellant as the one who fired the gun at the victim. Nevertheless, direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix where the trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt.[17] It is settled that conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Circumstantial evidence could be of similar weight and probative value as direct evidence. From direct evidence of a minor fact or facts, by a chain of circumstances the mind is led intuitively, or by a conscious process of reasoning, towards a conviction that from said fact or facts some other facts may be validly inferred.[19] No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that the accused committed the crime.[20] | |||||