This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-10-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Finally, there is also nothing on the record to show that Tubigan was actuated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. It is settled that where there is no evidence and there is nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witness was not so actuated, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and of human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.[13] | |||||