Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 174471 2016-01-12	PEOPLE v. JERRY PEPINO Y RUERAS BRION, J.
In Lumanog, et al, this court allowed discrepancies between the description provided by the main prosecution witness in an affidavit executed immediately after the crime and the actual appearance of the suspects. This court stated that estimate of age cannot be made accurately. It was possible that the accused was exposed to sunlight due to his occupation, which was why he appeared to the witness older than his actual age. The majority also accepted the explanation of the prosecution that the reason why the other accused was fair-skinned, contrary to the initial description of the witness that he was dark-skinned, was because of the prolonged incarceration of the accused before trial.[67]
	GR No. 174471 2016-01-12	PEOPLE v. JERRY PEPINO Y RUERAS BRION, J.
This court was unanimous in both Pineda (En Bane) and Rodrigo (Second Division). However, it was divided in the highly publicized case of Lumanog, et al.[104] Lumanog, et al. involved the ambush of the former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary, Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla.[105] During investigation, a security guard became the principal prosecution witness.[106] The police showed a man's photograph to the guard and asked him if the man was among the several men who conducted the ambush. The guard refused to identify the perpetrator without seeing him in person.[107] A police line-up was conducted, and the guard identified two of the perpetrators.[108]
	GR No. 212623 2016-01-11	ENRIQUE G. DE LEON v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Likewise, when it comes to credibility of witnesses, this Court accords the highest respect, even finality, to the evaluation by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before it.[32]
	GR Nos. 204481-82 2015-10-14	ALBERT G. AMBAGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
The finding of guilt based on the testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon in our jurisprudence.[63] Time and again, We have held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.[64] Such rulings were, therefore, premised on the fact that the credibility of the sole witness was duly established and observed in court.
	GR No. 208170 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. PETRUS YAU MENDOZA, J.
Alastair's positive identification of Susana is not in any bit prejudiced by his failure to mention her name in his sworn statement, dated February 12, 2004. It is well-settled that affidavits, being ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses.[29] Oftentimes, the allegations contained in affidavits involved mere passive mention of details anchored entirely on the investigator's questions. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit.[30] Testimonies given during the trial are more exact and elaborate. Besides, sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford the affiant a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[31]
	GR No. 201449 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. WELVIN DIU Y KOTSESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Once more, accused-appellants are challenging Perlie's credibility. Time and again, the Court has held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward, and worthy of credence by the trial court,[49] as in the case of Perlie's testimony. The trustworthiness of Perlie's testimony is further bolstered by its consistency and details. In her Sworn Statement[50] executed on October 4, 2003, only a day after the incident, Perlie already mentioned that she and her sister were victims of a "hold-up" and that her shoulder bag, containing P1,800.00 cash and her work uniform, was taken. On the witness stand, under oath, she retold how after embracing her, accused-appellant Diu grabbed her shoulder bag with the P1,800.00 cash, her work uniform, and her other personal belongings. The P1,800.00 cash was not some random amount that Perlie conjured, but it was her salary from the hotel.[51]