This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| identified by Gale during the trial as those who were with the group when the plan to kidnap the victim was hatched. Such testimony prevails over the affidavits which Gale previously executed. It is settled that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.[65] Moreover, delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where the delay is explained.[66] Gale was able to satisfactorily explain why he did not name or identify | |||||