This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies in the prosecution's witness' accounts of what had transpired, if any, were only minor and do not necessarily impair the essential integrity of the People's evidence as a whole.[28] Errorless testimonies can hardly be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. For sure, such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed.[29] | |||||
|
2003-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Improbabilities claimed by appellant result from a misreading of the testimony by the eyewitness, his own wife Pilar Tacla. Appellant asserts lack of motive on his part to commit the crime charged. He concludes that he had no reason to shoot the victim. Established, however, is the principle that where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a criminal case. [51] Whether or not appellant had a motive or reason to shoot the victim, conviction may still follow from the identification and accusing words made by no less than a close kin, [52] his own wife, Pilar Tacla. Moreover, he admits authorship of the killing, so the burden of proof shifts to the appellant. | |||||