This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense of denial cannot also be given any considerable weight as it was unsubstantiated. The testimony of Violeta pointing at Eddie as the real culprit is intended to bolster appellant's defense of denial. However, it cannot be given credence. Her testimony was given only after more than two years from the time the incident happened, and she failed to offer any convincing evidence to justify such delay. Records do not show that there was any threat on Violeta's life that might have prevented from coming out to testify. She herself admitted that after the explosion incident she did not see Eddie anymore. Eddie then could not have possibly threatened her. She could freely testify on what she knew about the explosion incident had she wanted to. Her alleged fear is unfounded. It cannot justify her long delay in disclosing it before the court a quo. Moreover, if she was, indeed, afraid, she would not have allowed herself to be interviewed by a radio broadcaster and would not have divulged to him all that she knew about the incident. Instead of directly disclosing it to the proper authorities, she had chosen to tell it first to a radio broadcaster. Further, the only reason she gave the court for her silence of more than two years was that she began to be bothered by her conscience as she recently kept on dreaming of those who died in the explosion incident especially during "All Souls Day." Violeta, in other words, cannot rely on the doctrine that delay of witnesses in revealing what they know about a crime is attributable to their natural reticence against involvement therein.[63] | |||||
|
2003-09-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| After considering the records very closely, we are constrained to reject the evidence for the prosecution. Jurisprudence is settled that whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and lies outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, we ruled that evidence, to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[68] Here, the prosecution witnesses, Platero and Pfc. Gatillo, are not credible. Indeed, their testimonies bear the earmarks of falsehood. | |||||