Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VICENTE VALLA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185726 2009-10-16	PEOPLE v. DARWIN BERNABE Y GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[25]
	GR No. 172370 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. FLORENDA CASTRO REYES, R.T., J.
We have consistently ruled that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies.[24] Thus, although there may be inconsistencies on the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants.[25]
	GR NO. 175946 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness is generally accorded not only the highest degree of respect, but also finality, unless some circumstances of weight and substance, which could change the result of the case, have been ignored or misunderstood. As the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, he/she was in a vantage position to assess the witness' demeanor and determine whether or not he/she was telling the truth.[11]
	GR No. 126171 2004-03-11	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO GENITA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. We stamp our agreement to such finding. Woven in the fabric of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood but which could alter the result and could affect the judgment to be rendered. Given the direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and determine if they were telling the truth or not.[12] Here, the trial court keenly observed:"The defense counsel attempted to force into the mouth of the accused the answer counsel wanted accused to respond to his questions. During the direct examination, for instance, defense counsel propounded this question:
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses that refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of the declaration, its weight, or its veracity.[14] Errors or inconsistencies as to the exact time or date or day of the week when the rape was consummated do not impair the credibility of the complaining witness, for as long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[15] As the Solicitor General correctly points out, error-free testimonies cannot be expected when one is relating the details of a harrowing experience. Mistakes by the victim as to the exact day of the week are matters which can be expected to happen when the victim is recounting her traumatic experience in open court and in the presence of other people. Far from demolishing the veracity of her account, complainant's mistakes buttress, rather than erode, her credibility for it is a clear showing that her testimony has not been tailored or custom-built.[16]
	GR Nos. 124338-41 2000-05-12	PEOPLE v. ARTHUR DE LEON Y LAGMAY PARDO, J.
The inconsistencies pointed out are minor that cannot be considered as prevarication. On the contrary, minor inconsistencies are signs that the witness was not rehearsed and that she was telling the truth. "Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants."[23]