This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2001-10-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| true.[21] Absent such showing, we are constrained to uphold the trial court's favorable ruling on the credibility of Benito's testimony. But was Benito Tejano's testimony sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt? The testimony of a single witness, if found to be convincing and trustworthy is enough to sustain a conviction. | |||||
|
2001-04-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The twin arguments therefore raised by accused-appellants against the testimony of Ruben Meriales are devoid of merit. A scrutiny of the records reveals that his testimony is not inconsistent with his affidavit of 4 October 1996 inasmuch as the former merely supplied the details of the event which the latter failed to disclose. But assuming that there was any inconsistency, it is settled that whenever an affidavit contradicts a testimony given in court the latter commands greater respect.[17] Such inconsistency is unimportant and would not even discredit a fallible witness.[18] The mere fact that Ruben admitted harboring resentment against the Ibaos for the murder of his brother Delfin does not confirm that he fabricated his story. His frankness in admitting his resentment against the Ibaos should even be considered in his favor.[19] There is likewise nothing unnatural in Ruben's attitude of concealing himself behind the kitchen wall instead of warning the Dulays of the looming danger to their lives. It is a well-known fact that persons react differently to different situations - there may be some who will respond violently to an impending danger while there may be others who will simply assume a cravenly demeanor. In this case, Ruben was ruled by his fear rather than by his reason, but for this alone, his credibility should not be doubted. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner has not shown that Rosemarie had any ulterior motive in testifying against him. Rosemarie knew that by lying she would be enabling the real culprit to go scot-free. Human experience tells us that a person, in the absence of a showing of any ill motive, would not impute a grave crime upon another unless the same is true.[14] In the absence of evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill will towards petitioner, her testimony must be presumed to be true.[15] In People v. Pama,[16] this Court held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in the heinous crime, the witness' testimony must be accorded full faith and credit. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the credibility of a witness is not affected by inconsistencies or improbabilities in her testimony if it does not appear that she has willfully perverted the truth as may be gleaned from the tenor of her testimony and found by the trial judge from her demeanor and behavior on the witness stand.[29] This principle holds true in the case of Felicitas Vallecer. | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[51] It is also the running case law that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Without any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim's death unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[52] In the case at bar, prosecution witness Cruz testified on what transpired immediately after the killing of the victim. He had no knowledge of the circumstances before the shooting and the shooting itself. There is therefore no proof that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Nor is there any evidence to show that the victim was unarmed. Even assuming arguendo that the attack is sudden, there is no evidence that the means of execution was deliberately adopted.[53] The finding of the trial court that the accused shot the victim several times does not find support from the evidence on record. Evident premeditation cannot likewise be appreciated. There is evident premeditation when the following facts are proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and | |||||