This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We cannot ignore the tedious process undergone by the prosecution in piecing the evidence together in order to bring the appellant to justice. Painstaking police work resulted in his apprehension. Save for the victim's husband, we note that the prosecution witnesses were police officers and impartial third persons who had no motive to falsely testify against appellant. Moreover, it is likewise highly improbable that Col. Padilla, the victim's husband, would falsely accuse an innocent person of the crime, for his natural inclination would be to pinpoint the real culprit.[45] When there is no evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[46] | |||||