This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Carefully sifting through the entire body of evidence presented in this case, we find nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of accused-appellant's guilt. While there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of Lorielyn, these to our mind are minor inconsistencies which serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.[55] Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[56] Besides, a rape victim can not be expected to recall vividly all the sordid details of the violation committed against her virtue. | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[21] Accused-appellants also insinuate that Virginia failed to show that she adequately resisted the sexual advances on her. Thus, they argue that Virginia did not shout for help while Tomas was dragging her towards the vacant house. While Tomas was dragging Virginia, a fan knife | |||||