This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-06-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to state that the perceived contradictions in the testimony of de Castro merely referred to minor matters that did not touch on the commission of the crime itself as to affect the substance of her declaration, and the veracity or weight of her eyewitness testimony. Witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. [12] We have repeatedly held that minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood, and bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witness often makes mistakes and falls into confused statements, and at times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity. [13] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the inconsistencies mentioned by the petitioner can be characterized as minor. Petitioner points to alleged inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of SPO2 Natividad and SPO1 Yusay who, on the one hand, testified that they confined their search and seizure operation on the ground floor of the house, and that the unlicensed gun and the shabu were taken from the petitioner; and the testimony of Chief Inspector Merced who, on the other hand, testified that the raiding team went up the second floor of the house then came down with sachets of shabu. We agree with the Court of Appeals that such inconsistencies are minor matters and that the testimonies dovetail on material points. [23] The inconsistency does not impugn the fact that the gun, ammunition and shabu were all recovered and retrieved from the petitioner when he was confronted and frisked at the ground floor. Minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that the testimony was contrived or rehearsed. [24] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. Although there may be inconsistencies in minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant. Minor discrepancies do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on the witnesses' credibility. We have previously held in fact that minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that the testimony was contrived or rehearsed.[5] In this case, all three prosecution witnesses identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Not only were they identified, the witnesses also testified as to their roles and their specific deeds in the killing. | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with the trial court that the appellant committed murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery. As the trial court correctly pointed out, Vincent was shot intentionally while his back was turned against the appellant. The little boy was merely flying his kite and was ready to get down from the roof when the appellant fired a shot directed at him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[50] Nonetheless, Vincent was an eleven-year-old boy. He could not possibly put up a defense against the appellant, a police officer who was armed with a gun. It is not so much as to put emphasis on the age of the victim, rather it is more of a description of the young victim's state of helplessness.[51] Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.[52] The abuse of superior strength as alleged in the Information is already absorbed by treachery and need not be considered as a separate aggravating circumstance.[53] | |||||