This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.[20] Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.[21] In the case at bench, the testimony of Flores, the lone eyewitness of the prosecution does not bear the earmarks of truth and, hence, not credible. | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| An offense is deemed to be committed in relation to the accused's office when such office is an element of the crime charged or when the offense charged is intimately connected with the discharge of the official function of the accused.[42] Respondent found that the interview Nazareno had given to Business World was his personal and private undertaking, and not related to the performance of his duty as a PDIC officer. Whether or not such finding is correct is beyond the reach of the administrative case filed against him; such question should be properly resolved in the petition for review of the City Prosecutor's resolution with the DOJ. | |||||