This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "fn">[51] the Court said: It is true that the testimony of a co-conspirator is not sufficient for the conviction of the accused unless such testimony is supported by other evidence. Such testimony comes from a polluted source and, therefore, must be received with caution. As an exception, however, | |||||
|
2000-06-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly relied on the positive identification of the accused made by Freddie Agrabio and Jose Amador. No reason has been advanced why the testimonies of these witnesses should not be believed. Hence, the trial court's evaluation of the witnesses' testimonies must be accorded great respect since it had the opportunity to observe and examine the witnesses' conduct and demeanor on the witness stand.[23] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the 4 year-old boy and his nursemaid testified on the circumstances of the kidnapping.[13] Their testimonies were duly corroborated by the testimonies of the Singh spouses and the NBI agents who entrapped appellants. Against this array of categorical testimonies, appellants could only offer their feeble denials and excuses. Categorical, consistent and positive identification, without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness, prevails over unconvincing alibi and unsubstantiated denials. These latter testimonies are self-serving statements, undeserving of weight in law.[14] | |||||