This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The purported inconsistency between the testimonies of AAA and her mother BBB merely refers to a minor detail. The central fact is that Batula, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, and use of a bolo, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. Whether AAA was able to name Batula as the perpetrator immediately after the rape or AAA was able to identify Batula as her rapist at a later time, does not depart from the fact that Batula raped AAA. We have said time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony.[24] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The alleged contradictions cited by the petitioner, i.e. where the victim was shot, where he died, and as to whether Ayson left his house after the shooting incident, are but minor details which do not affect Ayson's credibility. We have held time and again that few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair his credibility. Quite the contrary, such minor inconsistencies even tend to strengthen credibility because they discount the possibility that the testimony was rehearsed.[9] | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| We also sustain the finding of conspiracy. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime.[12] Neither is its necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What has to be shown is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design.[13] The conspiracy in the instant case was sufficiently proven by Jed meeting with appellants at the old airport tower and walking together with them towards the runway where appellants and Jed performed acts in unison with each other as to unmistakably reveal a common purpose and design. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not impair their credibility, for they refer only to minor matters which do not affect the cause of the prosecution. To be sure, whether Allan was gathering firewood or not, or whether Mateo Guañizo was fetched in his house or not, are facts that do not touch upon the crux of the crime. We have held time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen the witnesses' credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed.[12] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, to appellant's credit, the trial court considered the mitigating circumstance of his voluntary surrender to the barangay captain. Appellant spontaneously and unconditionally placed himself in the hands of the authorities, and saved them the time and effort attendant to a search.[29] The testimony of barangay captain Isberto and the police officer on this point were not contradicted by the prosecution. Thus, we find that the trial court correctly imposed the minimum of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua. We also find proper the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity but pursuant to current jurisprudence, another sum of P50,000 as moral damages should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim, without need of further proof other than the fact of the victim's death.[30] | |||||