This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accordingly, People v. Tabio[17] upheld the credibility of the mentally retarded complaining witness after noting that the witness spoke unequivocally on the details of the crime. The Court in that case observed that the witness would not have spoken so tenaciously about her experience had it not really happened to her. In People v. Macapal, Jr.,[18] the court stressed that testimonial discrepancies caused by a witness' natural fickleness of memory does not destroy the substance of the testimony of said witness. Likewise, People v. Martin[19] appreciated the natural and straightforward narration of the mentally deficient victim and dismissed her inaccurate and unresponsive answers. The Court in Martin reasoned that even children of normal intelligence can not be expected to give a precise account of events considering their naiveté and still undeveloped vocabulary and command of language. | |||||