This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have previously held that discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In fact, such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[24] | |||||
|
2014-08-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration. Jurisprudence dictates that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the witness. We have held that "discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In fact, such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed."[10] | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense hinges principally on denial. But such a defense is unavailing considering that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. "The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."[23] | |||||