This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A review of the records of this case shows that the RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.The testimonies of Calma and Zuñiga do not suffer from any serious and material contradictions that can detract from their credibility. Their testimonies are credible as they are replete with details and corroborated on material points by physical evidence and the testimonies of the other prosecution's witnesses. Dr. Celestino categorically testified that Calma was shot at the back and that without timely medical attention he would have died.[18] Zuñiga and Marquez were also very categorical and frank in their testimonies identifying Angeles as the man who shot Calma and who, together with his companions riding in his owner-type jeep, chased Calma and Zuñiga after the shooting. The Court has repeatedly held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referringto minor details, and not on the basic aspects of the crime, do not impair the witness' credibility.[19] These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A review of the records of this case shows that the RTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.The testimony of Helen does not suffer from any serious and material contradictions that can detract her credibility. The Court finds Helen's testimony credible as it is replete with details and corroborated on material points by the other prosecution witnesses, who were equally credible. Helen, who saw the shooting of Eduardo, was very categorical and frank in her testimony. She identified Leo as the man who shot Eduardo, and appellant as the one who drove the get away vehicle of the four assailants. The Court has held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referringto minor details, and not on the basic aspects of the crime, do not impair the witness' credibility.[47] These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[48] | |||||