This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| According to accused-appellant, private complainant made conflicting statements as to whether she knew accused-appellant before the incident. Assuming that there were really inconsistencies, the same pertain only to minor and trivial details, not touching on the whys and wherefores of the crime, and strengthen rather than diminish private complainant's credibility, as they erase suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. In fact, such minor inconsistencies do not impair private complainant's credibility. In People v. Toledo,[23] correctly cited by the appellate court, this Court ruled that the credibility of a witness is not impaired where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and a positive identification of the accused. Inconsistencies on minor details are insignificant. Rather than eroding the credibility of the witness, such differences constitute signs of veracity. | |||||
|
2000-12-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile.[17] In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed. | |||||