This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, whatever doubts that surrounded Leonila's credibility as an eyewitness were purged by her clear and straightforward testimony during the trial. While there might have been several minor inconsistencies in her testimony, Leonila was nonetheless able to give a candid narration of the crime which she claimed to have transpired in a well-lit area and at an arm's length distance from where she was. Her positive identification of appellant in open court as the person who stabbed the victim was unerring. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.[20] Moreover, we have ruled time and again that where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both victim and accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused, then her version of the story deserves much weight.[21] | |||||
|
2003-07-09 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| When the focus boils down to how conflicting testimony of witnesses should be assessed, great reliance is made by the appellate court on the findings of the trial judge who has the means to observe the witnesses at the stand and to give his considered judgment on their credibility. Various indicia, like the demeanor of the person at the stand, the "forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone, the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch" that almost always are not reflected in the record, can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or is stating falsely.[12] The evaluation of the trial court gains immeasurable importance particularly where there is only one eyewitness to the commission of the crime whose testimony can make or break the prosecution case and uphold or derail justice. Indeed, the testimony of a single, trustworthy, and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused even when it is arrayed against several witnesses for the defense.[13] | |||||
|
2001-01-22 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| On the first issue for resolution, i.e. whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's version of the incident that not only Billy de Leon, but also accused-appellants Leopoldo and Dominador were guilty of stabbing the victim, Ignacio Jimenez, to death, well settled is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner while testifying during the trial, unless the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[12] No cogent reasons exist to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, more particularly on its assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. | |||||
|
2000-10-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Was the evidence sufficient to convict appellant? The testimony of prosecution witness Madeja, as corroborated by the medical findings of the Municipal Health Officer, suffices for conviction. It is settled that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness is sufficient for conviction.[24] In criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[25] | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We thus give full faith and credit to Arnold Fabello's account that it was accused-appellant who stabbed the victim Andresito to death on the night in question. Not only was the place where the stabbing took place well lighted which provided Arnold Fabello with sufficient illumination to positively identify accused-appellant as the assailant, there is no showing that Arnold Fabello was ill-motivated in implicating accused-appellant in a serious charge such as murder. Where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the prosecution eyewitness for testifying against the accused, then his version of the offense deserves much weight.[11] | |||||