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 | |||||
|
2000-10-10 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q: On June 24, 1994, at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, could you recall where were you? (NELSON VOLANTE): A: Yes, sir. Q: Where were you then? A: I was at the house of Bonifacio Borjal watching television, sir. Q: What time did you leave that place? A: I left for home, sir. Q: Were you able directly to go to your house? A: No, sir. Q: Why? A: Because I heard somebody moaning while I was on the way home, sir. Q: At what particular place did you hear that sound? A: About a kilometer away from Bonifacio's house, sir. Q: What did you do when you heard that sound? A: I kept on walking for about ten (10) meters. Then I heard a sigh. Thru a foliage I took a look. Q: What did you observe? A: I was able to see these three accused with a woman who was lying on the ground. Q: Who were those three persons whom you saw? A: Domingo Buiza, Bienvenido Bonito and Roberto Candelaria and another one. x x x x x x x x x Q: What else did you observe? A: I saw Bienvenido Bonito standing and at the same time holding a piece of cassava trunk. Q: What else did you observe? A: I also saw Domingo Buiza holding the hand of the woman while Candelaria was near her feet. x x x x x x x x x Q: Aside from seeing Bienvenido Bonito holding the cassava trunk, what else did you observe of Bienvenido? A: He was the one who inserted the cassava trunk into the private part of the woman. x x x x x x x x x Q: At that time of the insertion, did you still hear her moaning? A: Yes, sir. Q: While that was being done by Bienvenido Bonito, what were the other two doing? A: They were holding the victim, sir. Q: You said that you saw three men. Could you tell us if there were other persons present there? A: Yes, sir, there was somebody whom I saw beneath a banana tree, about ten meters away. Q: What was he doing there? A: He was standing, sir. Q: Could you tell us why you were able to identify these three persons inspite (sic) being nighttime? A: Because it was a moonlit night, sir. Q: Could you tell us your distance from these three men? A: About five meters away from them, sir. Q: What else did you observe? A: That was all, sir. They were holding the victim. Q: Thereafter, what else did you do? A: I stepped back about five meters away. Then I left and passed by the farm lot of Salvador Bobiles. Q: How did you fell (sic) about what you have see(n)? A: I could not sleep, sir." The trial court found Volante credible. We respect its finding. We give the trial court the wide latitude of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses on the stand because of its unique opportunity to observe them as they testify. It is aided by various indicia that could not be readily seen on record. The witness' candid answer, the hesitant pause, the nervous voice, the undertone, the befuddled look, the honest gaze, the modest blush, or the guilty blanch - these reveal if the witness is telling the gospel truth or weaving a web of lies. Thus, unless any fact or circumstance of weight and influence has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued as to impeach the findings of the trial court, its findings on the credibility of witnesses should not be interfered with.[26] None exists in the case before us. | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All told, an overall scrutiny of the records of this case leads us to no other conclusion but to the correctness of the trial court's findings that accused-appellants committed the acts imputed to them. To restate what had been said earlier, "[I]n the absence of any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which as been misconstrued as to impeach the findings of the trial court the appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses or set aside its judgment considering that it is in a better position to decide the question having heard the witnesses themselves during trial."[44] What remains to be determined is whether the elements of the crime charged justify their conviction for the felony. | |||||