This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The records show that Amelou unequivocally identified appellant as the malefactor. She described in detail how he shot her husband.[54] That Amelou is the victim's widow does not detract from the worth and weight of her testimony. Mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not automatically impair the credibility of said witness, where no improper motive can be ascribed to the latter for so testifying.[55] Here, we find the records bare of any motive or reason why Amelou should falsely testify against appellant. Amelou's testimony, in our view, deserves credence. | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q. Why did you say that the accused heard (sic) the voice of your mother-in-law? A: He suddenly released his hold upon (sic) my body and afterwards he even threatened me not to tell anybody because if I will do so he will kill me, sir."[26] We also accord respect to the trial court's finding of credibility in the persons and testimonies of the private complainant and her witness. Rudimentary is the rule that matters of assessing and assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best and most competently performed by a trial judge who has the unique opportunity to observe the behavior, demeanor and conduct of the witness at the stand.[27] Thus, absent any showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, this Court will not interfere with its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.[28] Although it may be argued that this case was merely "inherited" by Judge Recaredo P. Barte, we note that his decision is in accord with that of the judge who originally tried this case, Judge Amante M. Laforteza. | |||||