This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Q: Was Benedicto [Felicidario, Jr.] armed with any weapon at that time? A: Yes, sir, he was armed. Q: With what kind of instrument? A: A bolo. Q: What about Fernando Sameniano, what did you observe from him? A: This Fernando Sameniano was the one who chased me. Q: Tell us, what did you do when these people attacked your cousin? A: I [ran] away because they were able to take our bolo. Q: You said, you [ran] away and you were chased by Fernando Sameniano, where did you go in running away? A: I [ran] towards the abaca plantation. Q: Was Fernando Sameniano able to catch up with you? A: No, sir. Q: And when Fernando Sameniano was not able to catch up with you, where did you go? A: I went home. Q: And you were able to finally arrive home that evening? A: Yes, sir. Q: And when you arrived home, what did you do? A: I told the wife of Roberto delos Santos that we were attacked in our hut.[9] The testimony of the eyewitness was direct, clear, and candid. He was able to identify the three accused, including accused-appellant, as the assailants. He was familiar with accused-appellant even before the incident, and on the night in question, he was only at arm's length from the three attackers. Furthermore, his testimony was consistent with the medico-legal report that showed the location and nature of the wounds in Roberto's face. A detailed testimony, like Norming's, acquires greater weight and credibility when confirmed by autopsy findings.[10] Lastly, no ill motive was shown that could impeach his credibility. Where there is no evidence showing devious reasons or improper motives why a prosecution witness would falsely testify against or implicate an accused in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[11] Well-settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even in a charge of murder.[12] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It must be noted that appellants' conviction was based on the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. Bebot clearly and categorically identified appellants, whom he recognized as residents of the same locality. His testimony was corroborated by Mendez, who saw the faces of the five appellants near the victim after the assault. As there was no indication that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimonies must be given full faith and credence.[23] Moreover, it is basic that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or neglected.[24] | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even in a charge of murder.[12] The trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed by this Court on appeal, absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[13] After thoroughly reviewing the records of the case, we find no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the trial court, which believed in Elmadona's testimony. | |||||