This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We therefore rule that, in the absence of evidence that the prosecution witnesses were moved by an improper motive in testifying against petitioner, the presumption that they were not so moved prevails, and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[44] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot utilize the testimonial inconsistencies committed by the prosecution witnesses. They clearly and affirmatively gave a full account of what actually transpired on 8 June 1992. They were consistent in their respective narrations on the witness stand, except as to the number of logs unloaded and the number of persons present during the unloading. It is understandable that witnesses varied in their estimates of the logs, since it was unlikely for them to bother counting said logs as their instruction from their superior officer was not to count said logs, but to deliver them to his residence. Besides, such minor inconsistencies on insignificant details cannot diminish their credibility. We have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details cannot destroy their credibility.[29] Minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor.[30] | |||||