This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-01-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the elements of the crimes charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, which established the guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies--particularly those of the police officers involved, which both the RTC and the CA found credible--are now beyond question. As the Court ruled in Aparis v. People:[12] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of accused, the Court finds no material inconsistency or contradiction in the testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. The alleged inconsistencies or contradictions cited by petitioner are not cogent enough to overturn her conviction. The testimonies of witnesses only need to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[23] This Court has repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility.[24] | |||||