This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In this case, accused-appellants have not given us sufficient reason to overturn the findings of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellants reliance on the alleged unfair conduct of the police line-up has no merit. The records do not bear out any irregularity in the way the police conducted the line-up. Besides, a police line-up is not required for the proper and fair identification of offenders.[10] What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the persons charged were the malefactors.[11] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In brief, the contentions of the parties respecting the first assigned error revolve around the credibility of prosecution witness Blaquer. When an accused challenges his identification by witnesses, he in effect assails their credibility.[25] Time and again, we have ruled that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the determination of the trial court because of its unique advantage of having observed the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude.[26] The assessment of the trial court of the credibility of witnesses are binding upon this Court except when there are facts and circumstances of weight and influence overlooked by the lower court, which could alter the result.[27] | |||||