This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Denial is the weakest form of defense. Gomba's outright denial of misappropriation was not sufficient to prove his innocence because unsubstantiated denial carries no evidentiary weight. It is negative and self-serving evidence. In People v. Magbanua,[15] we held:It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. With respect to the issue of whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erred in appreciating certain evidence against Gomba, we rule in the negative. It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, specially when affirmed by the CA.[16] Without any cogent or compelling proof that the lower courts committed reversible error in their decisions, we shall not deviate from the rule.[17] We therefore affirm the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Gomba committed estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that during the trial Ronilo testified that appellant stabbed Conrado whereas in his Sinumpaang Salaysay he did not mention the same. Again, this minor inconsistency does not destroy the veracity of Ronilo's testimony since, in both cases, he mentioned the fact that appellant struck Conrado four times in the head with a piece of wood. Note must also be taken of the fact that Ronilo had testified on an incident which had occurred three years earlier. Error-free testimonies cannot be expected from him, considering the limitations of human memory.[30] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Persons who witness an event may perceive it from different points of reference, hence they may have different accounts of how the incident took place. What is important is that their testimonies reinforce each other on the essential facts and that their versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.[35] The fact therefore that the statements of AAA and ABC differ on some minor details does not in any way affect their credibility or detract from the integrity and truthfulness of their declarations. The variations in their testimonies present a believable narration of what actually happened, made more so precisely because of their imperfections.[36] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The records reveal that Arellano indeed slapped Orfila in the presence of Atty. Maningas after starting a heated argument regarding an unpaid loan. Orfila categorically and unwaiveringly testified that Arellano slapped her in the presence of Atty. Maningas. The medical certificate issued to her by Dr. Pingol confirms that she sustained injury as a result thereof. Her testimony was further corroborated by three eyewitnesses to whom Arellano failed to impute evil motive. In the absence of evil motive, their testimonies should be given full weight and credence.[51] In People v. Villagracia,[52] this Court held:On the other hand, accused-appellants were unable to prove any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate them for the crime. In the absence of ill-will, it is hardly credible that these witnesses would prevaricate and cause damnation to the one who brought them no harm or injury. | |||||