This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-03-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| All told, We are convinced that petitioner was only defending himself on the night he shot his fellow police officer. The rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[21] This rule is binding except where the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[22] As earlier pointed out, the trial court did not consider certain facts and circumstances that materially affect the outcome of the instant case. We must, therefore, acquit petitioner. | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's claim that an indication of his innocence was his bringing the victim to the hospital. We reiterate one pronouncement in People v. Lotoc,[18] where we held that the accused, in helping bring the victim to the hospital, does not by itself prove his innocence, for it could have been motivated by feelings other than a genuine desire for the victim to recover. | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long held that "the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.[14] Prosecution witness Vasquez testified that he knew both appellant and his companion since they frequented the place of the stabbing incident as "standby" ("istambay").[15] Identification is facilitated by the fact that the person has gained familiarity with another.[16] In this case, the minor consistencies pointed out by appellant do not refer to the crux of the matter, which is his participation in the commission of the crime. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his credibility.[17] Further, contradictions between the contents of an affiant's affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility because it has long been within judicial notice that affidavits, which are usually taken ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate.[18] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Weighing the version of the prosecution as well as of the defense, the trial court found the testimonies of the defense witnesses lacking in candor and consistency. Particularly telling is the circumstance that all of them only surfaced during trial; nary a peep was heard from them during the investigation stage of the case at the police station and prosecutor's office. Further, the alleged motive imputed on the sole eyewitness, that he testified against accused because he was implicated in the case, deserves scant consideration for it is not only hearsay, but even illogical. To the contrary, the trial court found the testimony of the sole eyewitness credible and straightforward. It is well-settled that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, is sufficient to support a conviction.[17] | |||||