This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In prosecution proceedings involving illegal possession or sale of prohibited drugs, credence is usually accorded the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to falsely ascribe a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the apprehending officers, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[6] | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details do not impair their credibility.[9] Minor inconsistencies even tend to strengthen the credibility of a witness because they discount the possibility that the testimony was rehearsed.[10] As regards the actuations of the witnesses at the time of the incident, it is settled that there is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful occurrence.[11] | |||||