This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The aforementioned inconsistency is, moreover, a minor detail that does not affect the credibility of Russel and Francis as eyewitnesses. Likewise, the other inconsistencies pointed out by appellants pertain "only to collateral or trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense."[34] The primordial consideration is that both Russel and Francis were present at the scene of the crime and that they positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged.[35] This Court has been consistent in ruling that "although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."[36] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged x x x.[13] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||