This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Moreover, the testimonies of Rufino and Myrna do not inspire belief for being improbable and not in accord with human experience. It is axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be credible, it should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness, but should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[23] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As held in People vs. Docdoc,[37] the testimony of the offended party in a rape case should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can be easily concocted. In any prosecution for rape the testimony of the complaining witness if credible would be sufficient to convict the accused.[38] Hence, the greatest degree of care and caution must be exercised before full faith and credit is given to complainant's testimony. Basic is the rule that the testimonial evidence should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[39] | |||||
|
2001-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense suggests that it could be Angel Soliva instead who shot Noli Madriaga. This is unacceptable in the face of the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. The allegation that the shooting was the accidental consequence of the struggle between accused-appellant and Angel Soliva does not inspire belief as no substantial evidence was presented to prove it. It is highly improbable that a struggle even occurred as accused-appellant and Angel Soliva were surrounded by the latter's friends who would have easily ganged up on accused-appellant. Testimonial evidence to be credible should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but should also be credible, reasonable and in accord with human experience,[12] failing in which, it should be rejected. | |||||
|
2001-03-30 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Anent the first factor, we find the witnesses' opportunity to view the culprits at the time of the commission of the crime in the case at bar as far from ideal. While it is true that the crime occurred early in the afternoon on a clear day,[21] the events narrated by the prosecution were, however, contrary to the natural course of things so much so that identification of the offenders was hardly possible. For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness. It should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[22] As this Court once said:xxx. Evidence is credible when it is 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.[23] Indeed, if their testimonies on the matter were to be believed, both of them must have had a keen photographic memory considering that Vanadero even admitted that almost simultaneously after the hail of fire from the armalite, he crouched to evade the shots. | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| To prove self-defense, appellant presented a sole witness - himself. Hence, the resolution of appellant's guilt or innocence rests much upon the credibility of his testimony. Under the law on evidence, to be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[16] It should be such that under the common experience and observation of mankind the testimony in question would lead to no other inference than its probability under the circumstances. This holds true especially in cases where there is no test by which to determine its veracity except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience.[17] | |||||