This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-10-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Antonio. Further, we have ruled in the past that discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant, and have been taken as inferior to court testimony.[18] In this case, Benito categorically stated on the witness stand that Ronald was sleeping in the Toyota vehicle, apparently making his sworn statement inaccurate. In fact, however, he testified that he did not say that Ronald approached Intoy and Antonio, to wit: Q: Now, you must understand now that what you told the investigator Luna and what you told the court this morning at least on the fact of from where you came from are diametrically opposed to each other, do you understand that? A: I recall he was asleep at that time. Q: So when you told the investigator Luna "Then came the security guard Ronald Quillope from nowhere", that fact is false? A: I did not state that, it was only that he was asleep that I told.[19] There also was no inconsistency on who wore the fatigue shirt. Benito categorically stated:Upon the arrival of security guard Quillope he was also accosted by the companion of Intoy Palalam, the one who was wearing a fatigue shirt.[20] It was not Benito but apparently appellant's counsel who misappreciated the statement to mean that it was Intoy's companion who was wearing the fatigue shirt. | |||||