This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is the bounden duty of the courts to test the prosecution evidence rigorously, so that no innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties meted out for drug offenses.[93] Though we scrutinized minutely the testimony of Abratique, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve him. From his account, Abratique might appear aware treading the thin line between innocence and feeling guilty, with certain portions of his story tending to be self-exculpatory. However, his whole testimony could not be discredited. The established rule is that testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. But it is accepted, as a matter of common sense, that if certain parts of a witness' testimony are found true, his testimony cannot be disregarded entirely.[94] | |||||