This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-11-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We carefully scrutinized the records of this case and found no reason to disbelieve Alfonso's straightforward narration of the events surrounding the death of the victim. Nor did we see anything on record showing any improper motive that would lead Alfonso to testify as he did. In fact, in his testimony of July 31, 2001, he categorically stated that he had no misunderstanding with the appellant and his two (2) co-accused prior to the stabbing incident. Thus, we adhere to the established rule that in the absence of evidence showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witness to perjure himself or herself, we can conclude that no improper motive exists and his or her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[29] Moreover, Alfonso testified that he knew the appellant prior to the stabbing incident for more or less four (4) years already; hence there could not have been any doubt regarding his positive identification of the appellant as one of the assailants. | |||||
|
2008-09-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disbelieve these straightforward narration of the events surrounding the stabbing that led to Danilo's death. Nor do we see anything on the record showing any improper motive that would lead the witnesses to testify as they did. In fact, the appellant never imputed any such motive on Marlyn and Modesto. The established rule, laid down in an already long line of cases, is that in the absence of evidence showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify, their testimony can be given full faith and credit.[39] Thus, no actual or imminent threat to the appellant's life or limb existed when he stabbed Danilo to death. | |||||
|
2000-05-30 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of minute details; even the most truthful witnesses often err and issue confused statements.[21] By the suddenness of the assault, Josephine could not be expected to remember the details of the attack. What was important was her unequivocal declaration that the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of opportunity to put up a defense. She remembered that her sister was pulled away from her. She was shocked at the suddenness of the attack. She also did not falter in identifying accused-appellant as the attacker. Contrary to accused-appellant's assertion, inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of a witness do not necessarily destroy the witness' credibility. They may even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[22] | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Further, the record is bereft of any evidence that Viola had improper motives to testify falsely against appellant. Thus, we adhere to the established rule that absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[16] | |||||