This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions he derives while the witnesses testify before him.[13] The demeanor on the witness chair of persons sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a significant element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line between fact and fancy. Their forthright answers or hesitant pauses, their quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered looks or sincere gazes, their modest blushes or guilty blanches - all these can reveal if the witnesses are telling the truth or lying in their teeth.[14] As the final appellate reviewer in this case, then, we bow to the age-old norm to accord the utmost respect to the findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge on account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and on account of his personal access to the various indicia available but not reflected in the record.[15] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| On arrival at San Francisco, Webb went through the U.S. Immigration where his entry into that country was recorded. Thus, the U.S. Immigration Naturalization Service, checking with its Non-immigrant Information System, confirmed Webb's entry into the U.S. on March 9, 1991. Webb presented at the trial the INS Certification issued by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,[28] the computer-generated print-out of the US-INS indicating Webb's entry on March 9, 1991,[29] and the US-INS Certification dated August 31, 1995, authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, correcting an earlier August 10, 1995 Certification.[30] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Appellants, from the start of preliminary investigation, have repeatedly harped on the discrepancies and inconsistencies in Alfaro's first and second affidavits. However, this Court has repeatedly ruled that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[118] With greater relevance should this rule apply in situations when a subsequent affidavit of the prosecution witness is intended to amplify and correct inconsistencies with the first affidavit, the discrepancies having been adequately explained. We held in People v. Sanchez[119] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Our pronouncement in People v. Sanchez[38] is further illuminating on this point:The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. 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 - these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth.[39] | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Verily, the thrust of this appeal is to assail the credibility of the witnesses for the People. Upon a review of the entire records, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court and the CA. More specifically, this Court puts great weight on the factual findings of the trial judge who conducted the trial of the case and heard the testimonies of the witnesses themselves.[16] In People v. Sanchez,[17] the Court had occasion to reiterate that:The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy. 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 - these can reveal if the witness is telling the truth or lying in his teeth.[18] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (9) The failure of Alumbres to notice when Arce arrived at the scene of the crime is quite understandable, considering the events that were already transpiring. We have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies; slight contradictions in fact serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed.[52] It is settled that so long as the witnesses' testimonies concur on substantial matters, the inconsistencies and contradictions do not affect the witnesses' credibility or the verity of their testimonies.[53] | |||||
|
2001-08-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant Chua also calls our attention to an alleged inconsistency in the testimony of prosecution witness Azurin. Chua said Azurin first declared he received from Chua the shabu at the rear compartment of Chua's car. But according to Chua, Azurin had previously testified that he already had in his possession the shabu.[39] What appears, however, as inconsistency in Azurin's testimony could also be taken as a result of miscommunication. We note that Azurin's testimony was straightforward, candid, and generally consistent even under gruelling cross-examination. We are inclined to view a slight variance in his answers as showing that his testimony is not rehearsed. Slight contradictions are badges against memorized perjury.[40] | |||||