This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[55] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As the Court of Appeals had observed, the aforesaid inconsistencies are more apparent than real. Such inconsistencies are merely trivial, minor and immaterial. They refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime.[53] It has been established that where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility.[54] More so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[55] | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt, because established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[15] Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, defined as that which "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established."[16] Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free.[17] It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence.[18] Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, circumstantial evidence may surpass direct evidence in weight and probative force.[19] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| (1) the principal act or res gestae must be a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise a false statement, and the statement was made during the occurrence or immediately prior or subsequent thereto; and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[30] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's bare denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of Leo Mirabueno concerning appellant's identification and presence at the crime scene. Well-settled is the rule that for alibi to prosper, appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[24] Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[25] | |||||