This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have recently held that "[c]ourts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary considerations. Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. They are generally unreliable and looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. Moreover, it would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice, simply because the witness who has given it later on changes his mind for one reason or another."[25] We have, in the past, also declared that the recantation, even of a lone eyewitness, does not necessarily render the prosecution's evidence inconclusive.[26] In the often-cited Molina v. People,[27] we specified how a recanted testimony should be examined: Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully compared and juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made, carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change, discriminatingly analyzed. x x x.[28] (Emphases supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing material considerations, taken together with the fact that witness Garcia and the appellant are not strangers to each other, satisfy us that the danger of Garcia misidentifying the appellant does not exist. Where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both victim and accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused, his version of the story deserves much weight.[65] | |||||