This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-09-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, delay in presenting oneself as a witness does not affect credibility if the delay is satisfactorily explained.[16] Appellant claims that the delay of Antonio Montilla and Stephen Egos in presenting themselves as eyewitnesses was not satisfactorily explained. The following excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of this case show that there was in fact a good reason for the delay in presenting themselves as witnesses: Direct examination of Antonio Montilla: | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| It is understandable when a witness does not immediately report the identity of the offender after a startling occurrence, more so when he is related to the victim as this makes it all the more traumatic. It is equally understandable for a witness to fear for his safety especially when townmates are involved in the commission of a crime. An inculpatory statement can easily provoke retaliation.[20] | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To be excepted from this rule and to seriously impair the credibility of a witness, contradictions between the testimony and the narrations made in the affidavit must refer to important and substantial matters and not merely to trivial ones.[20] The inconsistencies indicated by the defense in this case pertain to details extraneous to the rape. We hold that they are inconsequential matters which do not affect the weight and veracity of her declarations. Insofar as the authorship of the crime is concerned, the complainant clearly and consistently testified in court that it was the accused who raped her. | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| That Zenaida was able to recognize appellant by the light of the gas lamp is not farfetched. This Court has ruled that illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, like a "gasera" or "lampara" is sufficient for the identification of persons.[50] Identification was, likewise, facilitated by the fact that Zenaida was familiar with the features of appellant who was her husband's cousin. Thus, in one case, the Court held that the distance of 40 to 45 meters of the witness from the crime scene, taken by itself, may lead the Court to entertain doubts on the accuracy of what a witness has observed but once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.[51] That the crime transpired at night is immaterial because Zenaida first saw appellant when he was barely two (2) meters away from her. | |||||