This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial and appellate courts reached the same conclusion that the testimonies of eyewitnesses Wilfredo and Jonalyn deserve credence as both narrated in a straightforward manner the details of Benny and Adriano's attack upon Jesus. Benny, however, still disputes the credibility of these witnesses by pointing out that Wilfredo's testimony that he and Adriano took turns in stabbing Jesus differs from that of Jonalyn who stated that while the two assailants attacked Jesus in unison, it was only Benny who inflicted the mortal wounds. The Court, however, finds this inconsistency to pertain merely to the manner the fatal stab wounds were inflicted on Jesus. The materiality of the assailants' exact position during their attack on the victim is a trivial and insignificant detail which cannot defeat the witnesses' positive identification of Benny as one of the assailants. Besides, "[i]t is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were [fabricated] and rehearsed."[41] | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To our mind, the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It merely pertains to accused-appellant's mode of escape, which cannot overcome the categorical and positive identification of accused-appellant by both witnesses as the person who shot the victim. It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were fabricated and rehearsed.[13] In the instant case, while prosecution witnesses Antonio and Wilfredo differ in their narration of minor details, they identified without equivocation the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Antonio declared on the witness stand: PROS. DIZON, JR.: | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the petitioner's advertence to the body of the decision mentioning the payment of backwages and other benefits is misplaced. It is settled that the operative part in every decision is the dispositive portion or the fallo, and where there is conflict between the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement, ordering nothing.[19] | |||||