This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Roque Ogrimen's failure to mention in his affidavit that he saw appellant pick up the shotgun from the victim's chest when the latter fell to the ground is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. We agree with the Court of Appeals that such omission relates to a minor and insignificant detail that will not substantially contradict Ogrimen's testimony in court that he saw appellant shoot the victim twice with the latter's shotgun.[21] Oftentimes, affidavits taken ex parte are considered inaccurate as they are prepared by other persons who use their own language in writing the affiant's statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent, particularly under circumstances of haste or impatience. Thus, more often than not, affidavits do not reflect precisely what the declarant wants to impart.[22] Omissions in the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him.[23] In fact, Ogrimen satisfactorily explained in court the omission by saying he only answered the questions asked by the policemen.[24] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Testimonial and documentary evidence show that Crisanto was twice diagnosed as being hypertensive. Prescribed for his condition were hypertensive and anti-cholesterol medicines, such as norvase, vascase, lescole and aspilet, which, according to Dr. Efren Nerva could affect "the potency of the erection of the patient"[33] when taken continuously. However, Dr. Efren Nerva, both as an expert witness and the doctor who diagnosed Crisanto's hypertension, could not testify as to the effects of the medication on him. No impotency tests were conducted on Crisanto that could have shown the state of Crisanto's virility.[34] Further, Dr. Nerva testified on these effects hypothetically because having seen Crisanto only once in May 1996 when he was diagnosed, and briefly when he was confined in 1997, Dr. Nerva could not say whether Crisanto took the medicine regularly. In fact, the medicines were offered as prescription samples, and nothing more. In light of the rule that denies the claim of impotency even when tests had been successfully conducted and offered in evidence,[35] Crisanto's defense of impotency must fail. | |||||