This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In light of the categorical and positive identification of the appellant by prosecution witnesses, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the latter testifying on the matter, appellant's defense of bare denial and alibi cannot prosper.[64] | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, we have thoroughly reviewed the records and, like the appellate court, did not find any justification to disturb the findings of the trial court. Our re-examination of the testimony of PO1 Inopia follows the trial court's conclusion that his testimony was given in a straightforward and simple manner. Besides, appellant is questioning the testimony of PO1 Inopia only on matters pertaining to minor details of the incident that do not, in any way, affect her conviction. The inconsistencies ascribed to PO1 Inopia involve minor details, too trivial to adversely affect his credibility as prosecution witness,[15] and do not negate his positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[16] On the other hand, the testimony of PO1 Inopia on the circumstances that occurred on the date of the entrapment operation against the appellant - from the moment he received a confidential tip from his informer until the time the buy-bust team apprehended the appellant - deserves to be given weight and significance as it emanated from the mouth of a policeman who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. Police officers are presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary or proof that they were moved by ill will.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Here, Wefind nocompelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court.Theallegedinconsistency in Cayetano's testimony refers only to a minor matter.Itisinconsequential and does not impair his credibility.[36] In People v. Prado,[37] this Court held:Inconsistencies and discrepancies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve instead to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. The most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes and fall into confused and inconsistent statements but such honest lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.Far from eroding the effectiveness of the testimonies of the two witnesses, such trivial differences in fact constitute signs of veracity.[38] We agree with the CA that the alleged inconsistency "only challenges the exact time when Cayetano gave his statement to the police."[39] The fact that Cayetano had conflicting accounts as to when he gave his statement to the police, does not in any way alter his testimony that appellant is one of the malefactors.He witnessed the crimes and had positively identified appellant. | |||||