This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that the evaluation 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 grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies.[38] For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the appellate court."[39] | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| shotgun is confirmed by the empty shell of a 12-gauge shotgun found in the crime scene. Three, the paraffin test showing that the hands of appellant were positive for gunpowder nitrate constitutes corroborative evidence of his guilt.[40] In fact, he has been sufficiently identified as the one who shot the victim.[41] Four, his alleged change of residence to Mandurriao coincided with the investigation of the shooting incident. Being a barangay tanod of Pototan, he should have remained in Pototan, if he was innocent, and exerted every effort to resolve the case before moving to another location. Verily, no general rule has been laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence that will suffice to convict.[42] However, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances of this case are consistent with the guilt of appellant and inconsistent | |||||
|
2002-11-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| gun or had worn gloves or the direction of a strong wind was against the gunman at the time of firing.[41] In these cases, the Court ruled that the absence of nitrates in a suspect's hand is not conclusive proof that he did not fire a gun.[42] In any event, the paraffin test which in this case showed accused-appellant's right hand to be positive for nitrates, constitutes only corroborative evidence of his guilt.[43] Even without the paraffin test, the positive identification by prosecution | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Turning now to the testimony of Leonilo Hamoy, accused-appellants find it "surprising" that he did not shout or "do anything except watch [accused-appellants take] turns in hacking and stabbing Gloria Rafael." The contention has no merit. With his baby in his arms and the speed with which the events unfolded, Leonilo Hamoy could not be expected to act with such speed and composure as to be able to come to the aid of Gloria Rafael. In any case, as accused-appellants themselves concede, different people react differently in a given situation.[24] | |||||