Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BEN DAYAG

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179280 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CALANGI CARPIO MORALES, J.
While in rape cases, the lone testimony of the supposed victim is enough to sustain a conviction, the testimony must meet the test of credibility which requires that it should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but should likewise be credible and reasonable in itself.[26] It must conform to human knowledge, observation and experience, and whatever is repugnant to these is outside of juridical cognizance.[27] The Court finds that the testimony of BBB does not measure up to this test of credibility.
	GR No. 139181 2003-10-27	PEOPLE v. JIMMY AQUINO Y VIOLA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The trial court found Analyn's demeanor while she testified to the rape as frank, straightforward, sincere, and unshaken despite the rigid cross-examination. True, the positive testimony of a credible complainant is sufficient basis for the conviction of rape, for jurisprudence recognizes that a victim who cries rape, more so if she is a minor, almost always says all that are needed to signify that the crime has been committed.[34] It is also true that a woman would not make a charge of rape for reasons other than to seek justice for what is the truth.[35] We must consider, however, a principle equally fundamental: that evidence to be worthy of credit must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.[36] In this regard, the probability of the testimony of Analyn is suspect in light of the totality of the evidence presented for and against the appellant.
	GR NO. 152351 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. JAMIL MALA Y RAJID DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In the assessment of the testimonies of witnesses, this Court is guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of juridical cognizance.[24]