This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself - tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years. [30] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On one hand, if we are to believe Susan, Orlando could not have possibly seen the hacking incident since he had accompanied Vicente home.[38] On the other hand, if we are to accept the testimony of Orlando, then Susan could not have possibly witnessed the hacking incident since she was with Vicente at that time.[39] Their testimony simply cannot stand together. This court is left with no option but to disregard both their testimony since we have no means to ascertain who is telling the truth and who is lying. This is consistent with our ruling in People vs. Castillon,[40] where we held that "where the testimonies of two key witnesses cannot stand together, the inevitable conclusion is that one or both must be telling a lie, and their story a mere concoction".[41] | |||||