This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners presented the Affidavit of Desistance executed by Cynthia to exonerate them from any liability. An affidavit of desistance is usually frowned upon by courts. Little or no persuasive value is often attached to a desistance.[32] The subject affidavit does not deserve a second look more so that it appears that Cynthia was not armed with a special power of attorney to enter into a settlement with petitioners. At any rate, it is an exercise of futility to delve into the effects of the affidavit of desistance executed by one of the respondents since it has already been established that petitioners are not negligent. | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Sama-Samang Salaysay[12] of Villena's co-workers described with particularity when, where and how Villena insulted Gaw. While Villena presented another Sama-Samang Pahayag at Pagpapa-Walang Bisa[13] where his co-workers retracted their earlier statements, we cannot accord it any weight. First, we note that this document was never mentioned or considered in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Villena anchored his claim on this document only in his petition before the Court of Appeals. As such, we find the same dubious, if not spurious. Second, the document was signed by only four of the nine affiants who signed the first Sama-Samang Salaysay. Thus, the statements therein cannot possibly bind those who did not sign it. Third, we have often looked at retractions with disfavor.[14] Just because one has executed an affidavit of retraction does not imply that what has been previously said is false or that the latter is true.[15] For these reasons, the Sama-Samang Salaysay stands and the truth of the statements therein binds Villena who did nothing but deny the same. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for petitioner's attribution of waiver to respondent, it cannot be determined with certainty from the records the nature of the alleged oral objections of respondent to petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon,[40] hence, courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it.[41] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. Like any other testimony, they are subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.[13] In Alonte v. Savellano,[14] Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno explains the rationale for rejecting recantations in his Separate Opinion:Mere retraction by a witness or by complainant of his or her testimony does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony or statement, if credible. The general rule is that courts look with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. x x x. The reason is because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that they will later be repudiated and there would never be an end to criminal litigation. It would also be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their minds for one reason or another. This would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| It is elementary that the existence of waiver must be positively demonstrated since a waiver by implication cannot be presumed.[5] The standard of waiver requires that it "not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."[6] There must thus be persuasive evidence of an actual intention to relinquish the right. Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be easily construed as surrender thereof; the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such waiver.[7] Necessarily, where there is a reservation as to the nature of any manifestation or proposed action affecting the rights of the accused to be heard before he is condemned, certainly, the doubt must be resolved in his favor to be allowed to proffer evidence in his behalf. | |||||