This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under cross examination.[13] If found positive and credible by the trial court, the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction.[14] The trial court's findings on such matters, when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on this Court, unless it is shown that the court a quo has plainly overlooked substantial facts which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[15] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In any event, this Court has said time and again that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court, what with reality that it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude while testifying. Its findings on such matters, absent, as here, of any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance, are final and conclusive upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal.[14] | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| evidence of guilt,[77] there is no law or dictum holding that staying put is proof of innocence, for the Court is not blind to the cunning ways of a wolf which, after a kill, may feign innocence and choose not to flee.[78] On the want of motive on the part of appellants to commit the massacre, we find that the question of motive lacks pertinence in the instant cases. Motive is a key element only when establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence[79] or when the | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[21] In the case at bar, accused-appellant stabbed the victim at the back and at a place which was not so illuminated. There was no provocation on the part of the victim as he just had finished hearing Mass and the incident happened so fast. Clearly, the victim was in no position to defend himself and to repel the attack of accused-appellant. Hence, the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of Murder. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed considering | |||||