This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Appellant further draws attention to alleged inconsistencies, conflicting and contradictory testimonies of prosecution witnesses, he highlighting that of Cabag that he saw four people (appellant, Quijada, Duetes, and Dequiסa), and that Mariaca testified that there were five (himself, appellant, Quijada, Duetes, Dequiסa) in the vicinity. Such inconsistency does not affect the credibility of either witness. Minor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular incident which do not relate to the gravamen of the offense charged are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related factors.[25] In fact, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses bolster rather than weaken their credibility as they erase any suspicion that they have been rehearsed.[26] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. First is the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense. Second is the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. The two tests should be applied in the alternative.[65] When appellant Demate asked the housemaid to let him inside her master's house at 3:00 a.m., we can grant that the subjective test was passed. However, in the imposition of the penalty on appellants, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime for two reasons. First, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is already absorbed by treachery.[66] Second, the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511 did not specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which should be given retroactive effect following the rule that statutes governing court proceedings will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage,[67] every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances.[68] Hence, since the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511, it could not be appreciated against the appellants. | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the first issue: As often happens in criminal cases on appeal, this Court is asked to disregard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses for being incredible, and, instead, give full credence to those of the defense witnesses. When faced with the issue of credibility, the Court ordinarily defers to the factual assessment made by the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question because it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment and manner of testifying on the witness stand.[28] | |||||