This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. The inconsistencies attributed to the prosecution's eyewitnesses involve minor details, too trivial to adversely affect their credibility. Said inconsistencies do not depart from the fact that these eyewitnesses saw the robbery and the fatal stabbing of Espino by appellant and his cohorts. "[T]o the extent that inconsistencies were in fact shown, they appear to the Court to relate to details of peripheral significance which do not negate or dissolve the positive identification by [Umali and Macapar of appellant] as the perpetrator of the crime."[30] "Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[31] | |||||
|
2010-10-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[24] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. x x x Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[25] "The witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[26] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The charge against Dumrique should be treated differently. While Dumrique was lying on the ground, Nacnac was beside his feet attacking Matos with a knife. Dumrique saw this as an opportunity to neutralize Nacnac; so he kicked the latter's groin. The evidence clearly disclosed that the intention of Dumrique was merely to disable Nacnac, not to kill him, and his attack was confined only to that. Dumrique did not actively participate in killing Nacnac nor did he join in any other manner to further the objective of Calabroso.[23] Conspiracy, which exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the felony and decide to commit it,[24] was not established between Dumrique and Calabroso. The trial court, while ruling out conspiracy between the two (2) in the killing of Nacnac, erroneously held that Dumrique was equally responsible with Calabroso for the victim's death; hence, Dumrique must be acquitted. | |||||