This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Roque Ogrimen's failure to mention in his affidavit that he saw appellant pick up the shotgun from the victim's chest when the latter fell to the ground is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. We agree with the Court of Appeals that such omission relates to a minor and insignificant detail that will not substantially contradict Ogrimen's testimony in court that he saw appellant shoot the victim twice with the latter's shotgun.[21] Oftentimes, affidavits taken ex parte are considered inaccurate as they are prepared by other persons who use their own language in writing the affiant's statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent, particularly under circumstances of haste or impatience. Thus, more often than not, affidavits do not reflect precisely what the declarant wants to impart.[22] Omissions in the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him.[23] In fact, Ogrimen satisfactorily explained in court the omission by saying he only answered the questions asked by the policemen.[24] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Alibi is an inherently weak defense and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court.[16] For alibi to be considered, the defense must show: (a) that the accused was not at the scene of the crime; and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to have been there when the crime was committed.[17] We agree with the trial court when it observed, | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| All the said three (3) witnesses who positively identified the accused established the bases for their identification and notably, their testimonies particularly in relation thereto, were not impeached.[21] No reason or motive was adduced by appellants why any of the prosecution witnesses should falsely accuse them. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill-motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[22] The natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim, (such as Jose Roño, III, the son of Jose Jr.) in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[23] Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence, such as Jose Roño, III himself, have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.[24] We have no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible, and that their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime has been reliably established. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note that appellant could not say why the two eyewitnesses should falsely accuse him. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] Furthermore, eyewitness Leovilgildo Cartalla is the brother of victim Leonides Cartalla. The natural interest of a witness, who is a relative of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[24] | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Another inconsistency played up by the defense is the difference in the testimonies of Christopher Huidem and Andres Rodriguez with respect to the clothes the accused Mendoza wore on that fateful night. In his affidavit, Christopher stated that the accused Mendoza wore an unbuttoned dark jacket over a white shirt and khaki short pants, while Andres testified that Mendoza was not wearing a jacket, but only a white shirt and khaki short pants. Such inconsistency is only a minor detail which does not affect the credibility of the witnesses. Witnesses cannot be expected to remember all the details of the harrowing event which unfolded before their eyes. We have consistently held that minor discrepancies do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on the witnesses' credibility.[38] In fact, they may even strengthen their credibility.[39] Furthermore, there is a dearth of evidence of any motive or reason for the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against the accused Mendoza. The accused himself tesitified that he did not have any misunderstanding with the prosecution's principal witnesses. Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that where there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill-motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[40] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense[28] and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[29] Moreover, for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence, the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense.[30] Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points.[31] In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established. | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In brief, the contentions of the parties respecting the first assigned error revolve around the credibility of prosecution witness Blaquer. When an accused challenges his identification by witnesses, he in effect assails their credibility.[25] Time and again, we have ruled that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the determination of the trial court because of its unique advantage of having observed the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude.[26] The assessment of the trial court of the credibility of witnesses are binding upon this Court except when there are facts and circumstances of weight and influence overlooked by the lower court, which could alter the result.[27] | |||||
|
2000-09-13 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The accused Albacin has not succeeded in destroying the credibility of Florencio. It is worth noting that the trial court found Florencio's testimony "sincere, clear, convincing, and straightforward."[48] Well-settled is the rule that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness.[49] The trial court also ruled that the "(e)vidence is completely wanting of any motive or reason for the complainant Florencio Navarro to falsely testify against the accused for crimes as heinous as that charged." Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that where there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill-motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[50] | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Secondly, "we have repeatedly held that when there is an inconsistency between affidavits and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight."[27] | |||||