This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-01-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the alleged inconsistent testimony of Inspector Malaza as to how the latter apprehended the appellant, it should be borne in mind that the weight of the eyewitness account should be on the fact that the witness saw the accused commit the crime and was positive of the latter's physical identification.[24] Inspector Malaza had seen appellant stab Michael, and, in fact, apprehended him right after the incident. Hence, the details on the manner by which Inspector Malaza apprehended the appellant would be immaterial and irrelevant. | |||||