This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-02-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. We have held that in our jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence.[17] It deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of universal application.[18] Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[19] In the case at bar, the trial court, which found some portions of AAA's testimony unconvincing, was nevertheless impressed by the following portion of the testimony of AAA concerning the events of June 21, 2002: FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: Now, on June 21, 2002 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, do you remember [your] whereabouts? A: I was in my bed, Ma'am. Q: What were you doing at that time? A: I was sleeping, Ma'am. Q: Who were with you, if any, at that time while you were then sleeping? A: None, Ma'am. Q: And, you were then sleeping in your resident located at Bgy. Peri, Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan, is that correct? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: This house where you were then sleeping, how many rooms [does] it have? A: There is no room, Ma'am. Q: And it is only a one (1) room house? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: There is no division whatsoever in the house? A: There is a division, Ma'am. Q: What was that division for in your house? A: It is a place where my siblings is (sic) sleeping, Ma'am. Q: That is a division from your place where you were sleeping and the siblings where they were sleeping? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: And, what was that division made of? A: It is made of wood, Ma'am. Q: The place where you were then sleeping, it has no door? A: None, Ma'am. Q: And also that place where your siblings were sleeping? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: So, you mentioned that there was an unusual incident, what was that unusual incident? COURT: What date? FISCAL DE GUZMAN: June 21, 2002, Your Honor. COURT: Okay, answer. WITNESS: A: Ginapang po ako ng lolo ko. FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: Who is this lolo you are referring to? A: Lolo Jose, Ma'am. Q: Is he also residing in that same house with you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: And, how is he related to your Lola, BBB. A: Mag-balae po. Q: When you say "Balae", what do you mean by Balae? A: My father is the son of BBB and my mother is the daughter of Jose. Q: So, for clarification, Madame Witness, you are living in the same house with the accused in this case, with your lola BBB and your siblings? A: Yes, Ma'am. x x x x Q: Now, you mentioned that "Ginapang ka ni lolo Jose," after that what happened? A: He inserted his penis to my vagina, Ma'am. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis on your vagina? A: It hurts, Ma'am. Q: What did you do? A: I was pushing him, Ma'am. Q: What happened while you were pushing him? A: He was fight (sic) back, Ma'am. Q: How was he fighting back? A: He was threatening me with a knife, Ma'am. Q: Was he telling you anything? A: Not to tell anyone, Ma'am. Q: How was he holding that knife? A: Like this, Ma'am. INTERPRETER: Witness is demonstrating through her right hand. FISCAL DE GUZMAN: Q: On what part of the body was the knife poked? A: On my side, Ma'am. Q: While he was inserting his penis on (sic) your vagina, where was that knife? A: He was holding the knife, Ma'am. Q: What else happen (sic) after he inserted his penis on your vagina and you try (sic) to struggle? A: He touched me, Ma'am. Q; On what part of your body? A; My breast, Ma'am. Q: What else happen (sic) after that? A: No more, Ma'am. Q: How about your lolo, what did you do after touching your breast? A: None, Ma'am. Q: Did he leave you in the house? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: He went out of the house that night? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Did you report that incident [to] anyone? A: Yes, to our pastor, Ma'am. Q: When did you report that incident? A: June, Ma'am. Q: Could you still remember how many days after that incident happened? A: I cannot remember, Ma'am. Q: Where did you report that incident to your pastora? A: At our church, Ma'am. Q: During a service? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Why did you report that incident to your pastora? A: Because I cannot bear it anymore, Ma'am. Q: Was it the first time the incident happened to you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: I am referring to the raping incident, was that the first time that the accused Jose Galvez raped you? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: What did the pastora do when you reported the incident to her? A: We went to the police station, Ma'am. Q: What did you do at the police station? A: We gave our statement, Ma'am. Q: I am showing to you a Sinumpaang Salaysay, is this statement you are referring to? A: Yes, Ma'am.[20] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence,[18] Neil's credibility has been severely tarnished by the foregoing portion of his testimony. Thus, we should likewise take with a grain of salt the following parts of his testimony which tend to refute the account of the prosecution concerning the acts of Castor during the incident: (1) that Neil and Castor did not grapple inside the Datsun car for possession of the gun; (2) that Castor did not wrest the gun from him; (3) that Neil did not enter the compound to put bullets in the gun; (4) that Castor did not order Neil to shoot Eugenio; and (5) that Castor was not drunk and challenging others to a fight. | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| The prosecution and the defense presented contradictory accounts of the events leading to the death of Emmanuel Balano. Well-settled is the doctrine that the opinion of the trial court as to which version of the commission of the crime should be believed is entitled to great respect. This is because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and thus determine who of the witnesses deserve credence.[6] A close examination of the records reveals no justification to depart from the trial court's findings on the issue of credibility. | |||||
|
2000-06-30 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| The prosecution and the defense presented contradictory accounts of the events leading to the death of Andres Ventura. And this Court has invariably held, the opinion of the trial court as to which version of the commission of the crime should be believed is entitled to great respect. The oft-repeated rationale born of judicial experience is that the trial judge who heard the witnesses testify and had the occasion to observe their demeanor on the stand was in a vantage position to determine who of the witnesses deserve credence.[14] A close examination of the records reveals no justification to depart from the trial court's findings on the issue of credibility. | |||||