This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, which are usually incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons. More so, because of the partial and innocent suggestions, or for want of specific inquiries. In addition, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.[56] Similarly, the failure of a witness to immediately disclose the name of the culprit does not necessarily impair his or her credibility.[57] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| 1. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body, foundation, or substance of a crime. The evidence of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder has been committed.[2] Corpus delicti has two elements: (a) that a certain result has been established, for example, that a man has died and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it.[3] The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.[4] | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity and unique advantage to observe at close range their conduct and deportment on the witness stand.[10] The general rule is that findings of fact of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, and the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions based on said finding, are accorded by the appellate court utmost respect, if not conclusive effect, and can only be set aside upon a clear showing that it overlooked, ignored, misconstrued and misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[11] | |||||