This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[33] It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts,[34] as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. Human memory is not as unerring as a photograph.[35] Thus, corroborative evidence in order to be credible need not coincide on all aspects.[36] | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Nor are such inconsistencies and even improbabilities unusual, for there is no person with perfect faculties or senses.[33] An adroit cross-examiner may trap a witness into making statements contradicting his testimony on direct examination. Intensive cross-examination on points not anticipated by a witness and his lawyer may make a witness blurt out statements which do not dovetail even with his own testimony. Yet, if it appears that the same witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted. | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, declarations at the preliminary investigation which are conducted to determine the existence of a probable cause and to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution,[40] should not be equated with testimonies before the court. Probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner.[41] While the transcripts of a preliminary investigation may form part of the records of the case, testimony taken at the trial on the merits of the case where the adverse party has the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to ferret out the truth, deserves more credence. Similarly, as this Court has held a number of times, sworn statements that are taken ex parte, are generally incomplete and therefore, discrepancies between statements made on the witness stand and those in an affidavit do not necessarily discredit the witness. Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance in open court declarations because they are oftentimes not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired.[42] | |||||