This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Sixth. While it is true that flight raises the presumption of guilt on the part of an accused, the converse does not necessarily mean innocence. There is no rule that, in every instance, the fact that the accused did not flee is a proof of his innocence.[25] It is not unnatural for a criminal, as in this case, to desist from leaving the place where the crime was committed to feign innocence. | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| unthinkable for her to weave a tale of rape especially against a close relative like an uncle, if such did not really happen. A witness' testimony is accorded great weight particularly when her accusation is directed against a close relative, because for one to prosecute a blood relative--especially when no ill or evil motive is shown--goes beyond logic and normal human experience.[8] Thus, when there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[9] Moreover, it is hardly persuasive that a young barrio lass like Mary Jane, virtually innocent of mundane ways and means would, for no reason at all, conjure a charge of defilement, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and willingly bring disgrace to her family | |||||
|
2000-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, accused-appellant points to the inconsistency in the testimonies of Josephine and her brother, Jessie, but his counsel never cross-examined Jessie nor required him to explain the supposed inconsistencies. In any event, we cannot consider the same as sufficient to justify disregarding Josephine's testimony altogether and sustain accused-appellant's claims. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood."[25] In People v. Arafiles,[26] we held:We have ruled that the protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility. Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed. . . | |||||