This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Ample margin of error and understanding is accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would naturally be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.[30] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The credibility of the prosecution witnesses Ellyn and Roselyn is not adversely affected by their failure to immediately report the identities of the perpetrators to the responding authorities immediately after the incident. Indubitably, fear stifled the witnesses from voicing their knowledge of the identities of the perpetrators. There is no rule that a witness should immediately name the suspect in a crime.[18] Nevertheless, the delay was not that long as when the police authorities investigated the witnesses in the afternoon of June 14, 1993 at Brgy. Agutayan, Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, they named appellant and accused Ronnie Abolidor as two of the perpetrators.[19] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| With respect to the then 10-year old Felipe's inconsistent testimony on where appellant was at the time of the incident, that could reasonably be attributed to his tender age and his failure to understand the questions of defense counsel.[63] For to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would naturally be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court, ample margin of error and understanding must be accorded.[64] In any event, upon clarification by the trial court, it was sufficiently established that Felipe saw appellant and Robles outside of his house.[65] | |||||