Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192250 2012-07-11	PEOPLE v. HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.[20] Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[21] In the case at bench, the testimony of Flores, the lone eyewitness of the prosecution does not bear the earmarks of truth and, hence, not credible.
	GR No. 150873 2009-02-10	ZENAIDA V. SAZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
Article 294(5) of the RPC fixes the penalty for simple robbery at prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, the range of which is from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Considering the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period; and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the same should likewise be the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty. The minimum term, on the other hand, shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium in any of its periods, the range of which is four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.[49]
	GR No. 173876 2008-06-27	VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Since we find no error in the factual finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the testimony of eyewitness Nico is credible, then the judgment of conviction against petitioner, Bacus, Boniao, and Handoc should be affirmed. The positive and credible testimony of a lone eyewitness, such as Nico, is sufficient to support a conviction.[38]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The testimony of a single eyewitness, if found to be positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction,[43] especially when it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[44] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness when found sufficient needs no corroboration, save only where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses. [45] Errorless testimonies can hardly be expected especially when a witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. Such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed."[46] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[47]