This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Private complainant's Affidavit partakes of the nature of an affidavit of desistance. As a rule, this Court frowns upon affidavits of desistance or recantation made after conviction of the accused. Such affidavits deserve scant consideration.[17] The Court explained in length in Molina v. People:[18] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's contention that the prosecution's evidence is inconclusive due to the recantation of its lone eyewitness has no merit. The mere fact that a witness says that what he has declared is false and what he now says is true is not sufficient ground for concluding that the previous testimony is false. No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility.[30] Furthermore, testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and, before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully compared, the circumstances under each was made be carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change discriminatingly analyzed.[31] | |||||