This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For conviction of an accused in criminal cases, it is enough that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. Production of the weapon used in committing the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of that burden.[18] It is not vital to the cause of the prosecution,[19] especially where other evidence is available to support sufficiently the charges. As to the presentation of witnesses, the question of which witness to present and when to present him is up to the prosecution, leaving the court thereafter to make the judgment call.[20] In the instant case, the trial court depended on the other evidence to determine the guilt of the accused, especially the eyewitness accounts of Lito Camara, Jr., and Leovilgildo Cartalla. While it is true that the trial court characterized their testimonies as "not too clear on what transpired,"[21] the transcripts nonetheless show that the vagueness refers only to minor or inconsequential details. What is vital is that both eyewitnesses categorically declared that they saw appellant shoot at the occupants of the car and that after appellant ran off, they saw the victims either dead or dying. It is settled that discrepancies in minor details tend to bolster the credibility of witnesses and indicate veracity rather than prevarication, as they erase any suspicion that the witnesses have been coached and the testimony rehearsed.[22] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nor can we give credence to appellants' contention that since the incident happened inside a darkened, open-air mini-cinema, at night, positive identification would have been difficult, if not impossible. The prosecution duly established that the incident occurred near a bright fluorescent lamp at the theater entrance.[30] Hence, it was not impossible or even difficult for that matter, for Blaquer to have recognized and identified the perpetrators. Where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the prosecution witness does not appear to have any ill motive to testify unfavorably against the accused, the identification of the accused as the felon should be given full faith and credit.[31] | |||||