This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, minor inconsistencies in the narration of facts by the witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimonies on the whole are coherent and intrinsically believable.[25] In fact, this Court had previously held that trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witnesses rests but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[26] Jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.[27] | |||||
|
2012-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We also find that the inconsistencies pointed out to be inconsequential, given the presence of conspiracy between the appellant and Olaso in killing the victim. "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."[16] The presence of conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense.[17] Conspiracy is sufficiently established when the concerted acts show the same purpose or common design and are united in its execution.[18] Moreover, when there is conspiracy, it is not important who delivered the fatal blow since the act of one is considered the act of all.[19] It matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim as each of the accused is equally guilty of the crime charged.[20] | |||||
|
2011-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the issue raised on the weight of the prosecution's evidence, the matter boils down to the credibility of the witnesses against accused-appellant. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[15] We adhere to the rule that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court,[16] unless the trial court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and significance which, if considered, would have altered the result of the case.[17] An examination of the records shows that none of the aforementioned circumstances applies. | |||||