Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMEO HILLADO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Credibility is weighed not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[44] Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality and not quantity. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness. For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily on the greatest number, and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness.[45]
	GR No. 169877 2008-02-14	PEOPLE v. AMADOR SEGOBRE y QUIJANO QUISUMBING, J.
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under cross examination.[13] If found positive and credible by the trial court, the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction.[14] The trial court's findings on such matters, when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on this Court, unless it is shown that the court a quo has plainly overlooked substantial facts which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[15]
	GR No. 151251 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HOMER MAGDARAOG Y SALONA PANGANIBAN, J.
This Court has consistently held that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found by the trial court to be positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. This guiding principle holds, especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity; more so when it is delivered spontaneously, naturally and straightforwardly.[19]
	GR No. 138303 2001-11-26	PEOPLE v. ELROSWELL MANZANO Y BREBONERA PARDO, J.
Moreover, corroborative evidence is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness did not tell the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.[39] In the instant case, no error or ill-motive has been shown that may somehow cast doubt on the veracity of his testimony.