This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We rule that the alleged dismissal of respondents from the service would not suffice to discredit them as witnesses. In People v. Dominguez,[98] this Court had occasion to rule that even a prior criminal conviction does not by itself suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of that witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimonies of other witnesses must be examined for their relevance and credibility.[99] In Gomez v. Gomez-Samson,[100] this Court echoed its previous pronouncement that even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying as long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others."[101] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have also ruled in People v. Dominguez,[76] which, in turn cited Cordial v. People,[77] that:(E)ven convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others." | |||||