This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Q Again, in your findings, is it possible that the 6:00 o'clock laceration could have been caused by riding [a] bicycle or horse riding? A [A]ctually, those are possibilities that could be seen in the books of legal medicine, but the possibility is quite remote when it comes to sexual crimes, when it comes to hymenal laceration, more so, if the hymenal laceration is a complete type."[29] The attempt of appellant to malign the testimony of the victim for alleged inconsistencies on some points must also fail for being minor. They serve to strengthen rather than weaken the prosecution's cause, as they signify that she was neither coached nor prevaricating on the witness stand.[30] Whether she had time to talk with the room attendant and whether she was bound by appellant before or after sexually abusing her are minor details that do not detract from her testimony that she was raped. | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| credibility of Gale. The testimony of Gale, sans that of Legarda, Jr., is sufficient to convict appellants. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[55] The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[8] This assessment is even deemed conclusive and binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily, or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that if considered might affect the result of the case.[9] We cannot imagine how Vicente Dauba was able to give a consistent narrative of how the crime was perpetrated and how the bodies of the victims were disposed of if he did not see the actual incident himself. More than just supplying the authorities with the details regarding | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The issue of credibility of witness is better left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand.[17] As discussed above, no significant facts or circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded by the lower court which if considered might alter the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the assessments and conclusions reached by the trial court is considered binding on this court. | |||||
|
2001-11-26 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In convicting accused Elroswell Manzano of murder, the trial court relied on the testimony of prosecution witness Federico Acero that it found to be credible. The profusion of details in his narration as to how the crime was perpetrated proved his physical presence at the scene of the crime and gave no reason for the court to doubt his testimony's veracity and accuracy. His deportment before the witness stand was candid and straightforward. Against this positive testimony, accused Elroswell's defense of denial and alibi can not prevail. The killing was attended by treachery, as the shooting was sudden and unexpected.[29] | |||||