This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-12-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In a Decision[20] dated January 31, 2013, the CA affirmed Candelaria's conviction, ruling that a finding of guilt need not always be based on direct evidence, but may also be based on circumstantial evidence, or "evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference."[21] In this regard, and considering that the crime of theft in this case was qualified due to grave abuse of confidence, as Candelaria took advantage of his work, knowing that Lao trusted him to deliver the diesel fuel to Viron,[22] the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Citing jurisprudence,[23] it observed that theft by a truck driver who takes the load of his truck belonging to his employer is guilty of Qualified Theft.[24] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| That Penar and Lacerna signed several affidavits prior to their testimonies does not totally impair the credibility of their averments. Contradictions between the contents of an affidavit of a witness and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility. It is established jurisprudence that affidavits, which are taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to a testimony given in open court as the latter is subject to the test of cross-examination.[35] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[21] In the determination of the sufficiency of evidence, what matters is not the number of witnesses but their credibility and the nature and quality of their testimonies.[22] The testimony of a lone witness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. While the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatest number.[23] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, reference is made on what Erlinda did not mention in her sworn statement. This is not an inconsistency but merely an incompleteness of narration. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries.[11] There is no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies during the trial.[12] | |||||