This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is not trite to remind that a truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony because of the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory; and that inaccuracies noted in testimony may even suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed.[14] To properly appreciate the worth of testimony, therefore, the courts do not resort to the individual words or phrases alone but seek out the whole impression or effect of what has been said and done.[15] | |||||
|
2000-02-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Neither is the testimony of Editha dela Peña believable insofar as it corroborates the alleged relationship between accused-appellant and Dolly Maglinte. Dela Peña admitted in open court that she was in love with accused-appellant and would do anything to help him get out of the case.[34] Her credibility is, to say the least, highly questionable. In an analogous case where the mother of the accused testified to corroborate his alibi,[35] the Court held that corroborative testimony is not credible if tainted with bias, especially where the witness is so closely related to the accused as to wish to help him evade liability for the crime. | |||||