This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, whatever doubts that surrounded Leonila's credibility as an eyewitness were purged by her clear and straightforward testimony during the trial. While there might have been several minor inconsistencies in her testimony, Leonila was nonetheless able to give a candid narration of the crime which she claimed to have transpired in a well-lit area and at an arm's length distance from where she was. Her positive identification of appellant in open court as the person who stabbed the victim was unerring. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.[20] Moreover, we have ruled time and again that where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both victim and accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused, then her version of the story deserves much weight.[21] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The crux of Lourdes' testimony was that accused-appellant had copulated with her, and the act was accomplished through intimidation. The alleged "inconsistencies" raised by accused-appellant are of minor significance and do not impinge upon her assertion that she was raped. Errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[18] A witness who is telling the truth is not always expected to give a perfectly concise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[19] | |||||