Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 488 views

    NO. 15 - People Vs Aposaga - FINAL

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    The accused was convicted of murder for killing Jose Barranda and sentenced to death. On appeal, the accused argued that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the eyewitnesses' testimonies had some inconsistencies, they were only on minor details and did not destroy the witnesses' credibility. The Court upheld the conviction, noting that it generally does not question the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility unless certain key facts were overlooked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    NO. 15 - People Vs Aposaga - FINAL

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    488 views1 page
    The accused was convicted of murder for killing Jose Barranda and sentenced to death. On appeal, the accused argued that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the eyewitnesses' testimonies had some inconsistencies, they were only on minor details and did not destroy the witnesses' credibility. The Court upheld the conviction, noting that it generally does not question the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility unless certain key facts were overlooked.

    Original Description:

    Digest_CrimLaw

    Original Title

    NO. 15_People vs Aposaga_FINAL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The accused was convicted of murder for killing Jose Barranda and sentenced to death. On appeal, the accused argued that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the eyewitnesses' testimonies had some inconsistencies, they were only on minor details and did not destroy the witnesses' credibility. The Court upheld the conviction, noting that it generally does not question the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility unless certain key facts were overlooked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    488 views1 page

    NO. 15 - People Vs Aposaga - FINAL

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous b4ycWuoIc
    The accused was convicted of murder for killing Jose Barranda and sentenced to death. On appeal, the accused argued that the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the eyewitnesses' testimonies had some inconsistencies, they were only on minor details and did not destroy the witnesses' credibility. The Court upheld the conviction, noting that it generally does not question the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility unless certain key facts were overlooked.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    NO.

    15
    PEOPLE vs APOSAGA, GR. No. 32477, October 30, 1981
    FACTS:
    The accused was convicted of the crime of Murder for killing Jose Barranda
    and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. They filed an appeal contending
    the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses.
    ISSUE:
    Did the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
    reasonable doubt?
    RULING:
    Even though it was clearly observed that the testimonies of the two
    eyewitnesses may have suffered inconsistencies, it refer only to minor details which
    are not sufficient to destroy their credibility.
    As reiterated, the Supreme Court has held that where the issue is credibility
    of the witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial
    judge, who heard the witnesses themselves and observed their manner of
    testifying, unless he has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance, that if
    considered might affect the result of the case.

    You might also like