This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even a mental retardate or feeble-minded person qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive and, perceiving, can make known her perception to others. In People v. Maceda,[48] we held that the mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects only her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate. In People v. Salomon,[49] this Court held that "[a] mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of one's testimony depends on its nature and credibility." In People v. Gerones,[50] the Court allowed the victim to testify, even if she had the mental age of a 9 or 10-year old. Likewise, in People v. Antonio,[51] the Court allowed the testimony of a 24-year old woman who had the mental age of a seven-year old child, because the Court was convinced that "she was capable of perceiving and making her perception known." | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Court would not be prepared to accept the usual lame defense of denial over the straightforward and positive declaration of a witness since denials constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Thus, in the case of contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight is generally given to positive testimonies than to mere denials.[38] | |||||