This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-03-31 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly rejected accused-appellant's self-serving and unsubstantiated pretense that BBB, AAA's mother, harbored ill feelings towards him. We agree with the CA's holding that he failed to substantiate his claim of ill motive on the part of BBB, as it is unnatural for a mother to use her offspring as a tool of malice, especially if it would subject her daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.[16] Indeed, no mother would sacrifice her own daughter. | |||||
|
2000-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, accused-appellant points to the inconsistency in the testimonies of Josephine and her brother, Jessie, but his counsel never cross-examined Jessie nor required him to explain the supposed inconsistencies. In any event, we cannot consider the same as sufficient to justify disregarding Josephine's testimony altogether and sustain accused-appellant's claims. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood."[25] In People v. Arafiles,[26] we held:We have ruled that the protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility. Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed. . . | |||||