This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one of credibility of witness(es), appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court.[28] The conclusions of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses command great respect and consideration, especially when such conclusions are supported by the evidence on record.[29] | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We brush aside appellant's contention that the testimony of Lopez regarding his identification of Porras is not corroborated by any other evidence.[92] It is settled that witnesses are to be weighed not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused.[93] The testimony of a sole witness, if found convincing and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[94] Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.[95] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor can the failure of the prosecution to present the murder weapon undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. We have held that the failure of the prosecution to present as evidence the murder weapon is not fatal to its case because the positive identification of the eyewitnesses is sufficient to prove the culpability of the accused.[38] Considering the foregoing, we see no reason to disregard the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and overturn the findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants contend that the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of Frances Claire Rivera as well as the knife used in stabbing Randy Luntayao puts in doubt the prosecution's evidence. We do not think so. The presentation of the knife in evidence is not indispensable.[34] | |||||