This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Appellant's reliance on the affidavit of Flores in order to cast doubt on her testimony is futile. The Court has consistently ruled that discrepancies between the statements in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily downgrade the latter.[46] Ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, frequently prepared by administering officers, and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said.[47] Almost always, the latter would simply sign such documents after being read to them.[48] Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.[49] | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The inconsistencies between a complainant's testimony in open court and her sworn statement before the investigators are generally not fatal defects to justify a reversal of conviction. Affidavits being taken ex parte are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate that they are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.[18] Hence, variances between the affidavit and the court testimony do not by themselves affect credibility. The affidavit is frequently not a complete reproduction of what the declarant had in mind, considering that it is often prepared by the administering officer and cast in the latter's language or according to the latter's understanding of what the affiant has said, while the affiant would simply sign the affidavit after it has been read to him.[19] | |||||