This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| 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. 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. 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.[10] | |||||
|
2008-03-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's argument that Aleine's testimony identifying him as the one who shot Ramon is not morally certain because she saw only the side portion of his face and the color of the shirt he wore during the incident, deserves scant consideration. A person can still be properly identified and recognized even by merely looking at the side portion of his face. To be sure, Aleine recognized and identified appellant in the police line-up and during trial as the one who shot Ramon. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.[42] A startling or frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the mind that can be recalled vividly.[43] It bears stressing that Aleine was less than one meter away from appellant when the latter shot Ramon. The crime scene was also well-lighted during the incident because there was a fluorescent bulb inside the house.[44] | |||||