This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-11-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As heretofore discussed, the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not warrant the reversal of appellant's conviction in light of the positive and candid account of Inspector Cortez that appellants sold to him 312.2 grams of shabu in exchange for boodle money. The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in the case of Inspector Cortez, is sufficient to support a conviction.[69] | |||||
|
2006-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As above discussed, the findings of the trial court on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies and the probative weight thereof, are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[26] In the case at bar, the addition or omission of these words, and the difference between the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals as to where the seven spent shells were found, are too minor and inconsequential to affect the outcome of this case. These, even if considered, would not overturn the established fact that petitioner was identified as the assailant. Nothing in the record shows that there was any inconsistency as regards the identity of the assailant. Both private complainant and Armando Maramba were one in pointing to petitioner as the culprit. | |||||