This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The establishment of the crimes of which the accused were charged is not weakened by the alleged inconsistencies cited by accused-appellants. The cited inconsistencies pertain to minor details. Inconsistencies referring to minor details strengthen rather than weaken the witness' credibility for they give the impression of rehearsed testimony.[20] As a matter of fact, discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters - not to the central fact of the crime - do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential culpability of witnesses' declarations as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[21] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses refer to trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty. [19] The alleged inconsistencies on minor details pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual operation itself, that crucial moment when Fabian was caught delivering shabu to Macalong, who knowingly possessed it. Thus, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses especially since the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial. [20] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| First, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness' honesty.[8] Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself that crucial moment when the appellant was caught selling shabu which might warrant a reversal of appellant's conviction.[9] Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[10] Besides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.[11] Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[12] | |||||