Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENEDICT URETA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 189971 2010-08-23	FREDDIE CABILDO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the testimony of a single yet credible and trustworthy witness suffices to support a conviction.[20] This principle finds more compelling application when the lone witness is the victim himself whose direct and positive identification of his assailants is almost always regarded with indubitable credibility, owing to the natural tendency of victims to seek justice, and thus strive to remember the faces of their malefactors and the manner in which they committed the crime. [21]
	GR No. 176566 2009-04-16	ELISEO EDUARTE Y. COSCOLLA v. VS.PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What further fortifies the credibility of prosecution witnesses is that Eduarte has not shown that Navarra and Adoro had any ulterior motive in testifying against him. Adoro testified that the only reason why she testified against Eduarte was because he was the real culprit.[18] Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[19]
	GR No. 163331 2008-08-29	ARELLANO NOVICIO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Note that the RTC found Mario and Demetrio to be credible witnesses, deserving full faith and credence. Note likewise that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of their credibility. It is doctrinal that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses especially when affirmed by the CA is entitled to great weight and respect. Petitioners failed to show any persuasive reason for us to depart from this doctrine, other than insisting that several witnesses for the defense contradicted the prosecution's version of the incident. Credibility is weighed not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[29]
	GR NO. 157804 2006-06-20	CERILO BRICENIO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
The prosecution witnesses had full view of the petitioner identified as the culprit. In addition, there was no showing of ill motive on their part to testify falsely against petitioner. Where there is no evidence to show any dubious or improper motive why a prosecution witness should bear false witness against the accused, or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony of said witness is worthy of full faith and credit.[14] More important, here the witnesses positively identified petitioner as the culprit.[15]