This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-02-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, Michael Casiguran was only seventeen (17) years old when the incident happened. At his relatively young age, his vision is presumably unimpaired, affording him the opportunity to have an eye to eye contact with appellant.[7] As to the seeming discrepancy in Casiguran's testimony and his statement before the police, the same does not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant, and have been taken as inferior to court testimony.[8] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The straightforward and consistent testimonies of the three vital prosecution witnesses bear the earmarks of credibility. Further, there exists no ill motive on their part to prevaricate. This absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain that no improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit (citation omitted), for witnesses do not generally falsely impute to an accused a serious criminal offense were it not the untarnished truth. (Citation omitted) Settled is the rule that in the absence of any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued to impeach the findings of the trial court, the appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of the witnesses or set aside its judgment, considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question for it had heard the witnesses themselves during the trial. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court.[19] | |||||