This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded by accused-appellant's claim. The eyewitnesses' statements were correctly given credence by the lower courts. Indeed, the test of credibility is not based solely on proximity. The Court has affirmed convictions based on the testimony of witnesses who identified assailants from a distance of 31 feet[18] and even from a distance of 50 meters away, while witnesses were gathering coconuts, with tall and short shrubs between the witnesses and the place where the felony occurred.[19] It is settled that the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. The rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC.[20] We find no reason to rule otherwise in this case. | |||||
|
2015-10-21 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled that denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[18] | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, appellants contend that the prosecution witnesses made inconsistent and improbable statements in court which supposedly impair their credibility, such as whether or not the stepsons of the victim left for Ticalaan together to report the incident, whether the accused were still firing at the victim when they left or not, and whether or not the accused went after the stepsons after shooting the victim. We have reviewed the relevant portions of the transcripts pointed out by the appellants and have confidently arrived at the conclusion that these are matters involving minor inconsistencies pertaining to details of immaterial nature that do not tend to diminish the probative value of the testimonies at issue. We elucidated on this subject in Avelino v. People,[13] to wit: Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its capacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly weaken their probative value. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness. (Emphasis omitted.) | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00[29] and exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00[30] is correct. The amount of actual damages duly proven in court in the sum of P60,100.00 is likewise upheld. Finally, we impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages from the date of finality of this ruling until fully paid.[31] | |||||