This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-10-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant has not shown any evidence of improper motive on the part of Wilfredo and Antonio that would have driven them to falsely testify against him. Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[17] | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses because of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses in the process of unearthing the truth. Thus, except for compelling reasons, we are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses.[6] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court accords great respect to the factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in their findings.[16] Two (2) vital circumstances however exhort us to appraise the testimonies of the witnesses anew: (a) accused-appellant's continued stay in the barrio after the occurrence of the crime while his co-accused Eulalio Autida sought refuge at another province; and, (b) accused-appellant's act of pursuing the instant appeal when his co-accused Eulalio Autida did not. These circumstances, to our mind, befog the accuracy of accused-appellant's conviction and calls to order an examination of the records and the principles of law applied. | |||||
|
2001-01-17 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Alibi is defense inherently weak. It can easily be contrived and may only be accepted with great caution and not with precipitate credulity. In the case at bar, Norman Toyco's alibi, which is uncorroborated, does not inspire a scintilla of belief. His acknowledgment that their house and that of the Sumadias are merely less than 100 meters apart (TSN, p. 5, direct of Norman Toyco, Dec. 8, 1997) should be given great weight. They being neighbors at such a short distance, it would not be physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene that evening of January 5, 1995."[8] Evidently, the defense sought to establish the innocence of appellant by four witnesses vis-a-vis that of the prosecution's lone eyewitness. Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[9] The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in charge of murder.[10] Moreover, appellant's twin defenses of denial and alibi have been consistently classified by the Court as weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[11] Appellant who claimed to be asleep in his house which is less than a hundred meters from where the crime happened has not shown said physical impossibility. | |||||