This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable services to the police. Except when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the officers had motives to falsely testify against the accused, or that it was the informant who acted as the poseur-buyer, the informant's testimony may be dispensed with, as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.[25] In People v. Lopez, the Court ruled that the "informant's testimony, then, would have been merely corroborative and cumulative because the fact of sale of the prohibited drug was already established by the direct testimony of SPO4 Jamisolamin who actively took part in the transaction. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, it need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."[26] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| After a careful scrutiny of the records and pleadings, we find no cogent reason to overturn the findings of the RTC or the CA. Anent the reliance of the RTC on the eyewitness testimony of Melanie, this particular finding is best left to its competence. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[19] Unless trial courts are found to have plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value, their conclusions on the credibility of witnesses should be respected.[20] | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the trial court's ruling that attempted murder was clearly established by the prosecution witnesses. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[20] These significant factors are needed in unearthing the truth, especially in conflicting testimonies. The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted,[21] which is not true in the present case. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As held by this Court in People v. Lopez:[21] | |||||