This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-09-13 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements- Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. The Solicitor General correctly noted that appellant's counsel never confronted Marlyn Calaycay during the proceedings in the trial court regarding the entries in the police blotter to give her the opportunity to confirm or deny authorship thereof, and in case of the former, to explain the alleged discrepancy. It has been held that previous inconsistent statements cannot serve as bases for impeaching the credibility of a witness unless his attention was first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given the opportunity to explain them.[26] The rationale for the rule was amply discussed by this court in the relatively recent case of People vs. de Guzman[27] , thus:The rule which requires a sufficient foundation to be first laid before introducing evidence of inconsistent statements of a witness is founded upon common sense and is essential to protect the character of a witness. His memory is refreshed by the necessary inquiries, which enables him to explain the statements referred to, and to show that they were made under a mistake, or that there was no discrepancy between them and his testimony. | |||||