This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant brands Doris Labini as a biased witness, thus unreliable, because she was the wife of Edwin Labini. The fact that she was the wife of the victim did not necessarily make her a partial witness. It is well-settled that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair the witness' credibility. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[34] A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.[35] To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[36] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| xxx. The testimony of the offended girl was given in a straightforward manner unimpaired by material discrepancies and contradictions and consistent with ordinary human experience. Her testimony under the grueling examination by the prosecution as well as the defense undoubtedly bears the imprint of truth and therefore must be accepted.[21] We have time and again said that the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it has the opportunity to examine their demeanor on the witness stand.[22] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[23] We find nothing on record that would compel us to deviate from such well-entrenched rule so as to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the victim AAA. | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's contentions relate to the credibility of the testimony of complainant. We have time and again said that the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it has the opportunity to examine their demeanor on the witness stand.[16] Unless shown that the trial court overlooked or misunderstood some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the result of the case, its findings on questions of facts will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] We have reviewed the record of the instant case and found nothing which would warrant a reversal of the trial court's findings. | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner brands Molly and Silmana Linglingen as biased witnesses, thus, unreliable, because they were town mates and co-vendors of the victim. The fact that these two witnesses were the victim's town mates and co-vendors did not necessarily make them biased witnesses. It is well-settled that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair the witness' credibility. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative, or a friend as in this case, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[44] A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.[45] To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[46] | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It was not Pactor who reported the incident to the police on March 30, 1997. The transcript of stenographic notes adequately reveals that while he was with both Nonita and Barangay Captain Paculanang when the two went to the police station to report the incident,[20] he remained outside while awaiting the arrival of the victim's body for the postmortem examination.[21] We stress that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value, for these are normally incomplete and inaccurate,[22] especially when made by persons with no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Hence, the fact that Cerna's assailant was unnamed in the police blotter does not affect the credibility of the other pieces of evidence on record, positively pointing to appellant as the killer. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the medical examination conducted on Elma Luna buttressed her testimony that she was raped. Dr. Wilfred Kenept who examined Elma Luna a day after the incident on 30 October 1998, testified that there were fresh lacerations with swelling in Elma Luna's vagina. Although he stated that the hymen might still be intact since he did not see it because of the lacerations, [10] the rupture of the hymen is not necessary to consummate rape.[11] As correctly held by the trial court, mere touching by the male's organ of the labia of the pudendum of the female's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[12] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's arguments boil down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. The trial court has pointed out in its decision that In-In was "categorical, straightforward, credible, convincing, natural and spontaneous"[9] in narrating her defloration in the hands of accused-appellant. The settled rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to respect, since it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[10] A witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[11] | |||||