This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Davila Street, Navotas. Her testimony is thus materially corroborated by the autopsy conducted on the deceased. It having been established that the victim died from multiple stab wounds, the failure of Mrs. Bates to identify or describe the weapon used is of no consequence and cannot diminish her credibility.[14] For one, witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. For another, what is vital in her testimony is not her knowledge of the weapon used, but that she saw appellant stabbing the victim. The presentation of the murder weapon is not indispensable to the prosecution of an accused.[15] The non-identification or non-presentation of the weapon used is not fatal to the prosecution's cause where the accused was positively identified.[16] Second, appellant assails Mrs. Bates' claim that the incident occurred at the dead end of the alley where her son was sleeping and that she saw appellant immediately leave the crime scene. He points out that if her story were true, he should, by force of | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, appellants assert that the paraffin tests are judicially recognized as unreliable and inconclusive. A paraffin test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand. However, it cannot establish that the source of the nitrates was the discharge of firearms. Nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have handled one or more substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and leguminous plants. Hence, the presence of nitrates should only be taken as an indication of a possibility that a person has fired a gun.[27] However, it must be borne in mind that appellants were not convicted on the sole basis of the paraffin test. | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, prosecution eyewitness Tomas Baniquid positively identified appellant as one of the three assailants who, acting in concert, assaulted and killed Herlito Delara. Appellant has shown no reason why Baniquid, who has been his long-time neighbor, should falsely testify against him. Against such positive identification, appellant's bare denial of any participation in the killing of Delara must fall.[26] The testimony of a single witness, when positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even for murder.[27] We find that the prosecution has successfully proven appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the award of damages to "the heirs" of the victim is legally justified. | |||||
|
2000-09-13 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The accused Albacin has not succeeded in destroying the credibility of Florencio. It is worth noting that the trial court found Florencio's testimony "sincere, clear, convincing, and straightforward."[48] Well-settled is the rule that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness.[49] The trial court also ruled that the "(e)vidence is completely wanting of any motive or reason for the complainant Florencio Navarro to falsely testify against the accused for crimes as heinous as that charged." Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that where there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill-motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[50] | |||||