This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-04-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In this appeal, accused-appellants challenge the veracity of the testimony of Ruben Meriales primarily on two (2) grounds: first, Ruben's testimony in court is different from and is contradictory to his affidavit of 4 October 1996; and second, Ruben is not a disinterested witness because he has a grudge against the Ibaos. Consistent with giving due deference to the observations of the trial court on credibility of witnesses, we agree with the court a quo when it believed Ruben Meriales more than the defense witnesses.[15] Indeed, the trial court is best equipped to make an assessment of witnesses, and its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless it has overlooked, misunderstood or disregarded important facts,[16] which is not true in the present case. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Yet, if it appears that the witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and as concluded by the trial judge from his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his credibility on material points may be accepted. Fourth. Petitioner claims that none of the victim's relatives, including Rosemarie, identified the killers during the police investigation. This is not so. The record shows that the victim's relatives reported the crime to the Taguig police on the very night of the incident. That they did not immediately give the identities of the killer is not of such importance as to affect their credibility. Delay in divulging the names of perpetrators of crimes, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and the probative value of his testimony.[24] In this case, the witnesses had reason to be afraid. After Angelito Balbuena died, his two brothers were also killed. | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| contradict appellant. They claim he was there because he wanted to see the rape victim and pretended to offer his assistance, alleging that he had witnessed the crime. That the court a quo accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses only means they are more credible than appellant. Moreover, we find appellant's version adding credence to the prosecution's version of the circumstances which led to his arrest. Absent any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which may have been overlooked or misconstrued as to impeach the findings of the trial court, this Court will not interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of the witnesses. For the trial court is usually in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard and observed the demeanor of the witnesses themselves during the trial.[37] Appellant would make us believe that because he did not flee like a guilty man, he should be exonerated. It is true that the flight of an accused is competent evidence against him, tending to establish his guilt.[38] However, no law nor jurisprudence | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses which is generally for the trial court to determine. The reason is that it is the trial judge who has seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying. The factual findings of the trial court therefore command great weight and respect,[24] in the absence of any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued as to impeach these findings.[25] None is availing in this case. | |||||