Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGILIO SANTOS v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 147578-85 2008-01-28	ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA v. PEOPLE and JUAN S. ARMAMENTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. [8] The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention.[9] The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.[10] Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld.[11] As found by the Sandiganbayan, "(t)here is indubitably nothing in the affidavit which creates doubts on the guilt of accused Balderama and Nagal."
	GR Nos. 152589 and 152758 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
Time and again we have held that not all kinds of discrepancies and inconsistencies in testimonies have the effect of discrediting a witness. On The contrary, some variances may actually strengthen the witness' credibility as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The alleged incongruities in the testimony of Maricar, as pointed out by appellant, are of this nature. They reinforce the credibility of Maricar and her testimony as they manifest her innocence and spontaneity in relating her story in court amidst the petrifying experience of a trial proceeding.v.She never faltered in her narration of the essential elements of the subject felony whether before the investigating judge or prosecutor, or the trial judge.[44]
	GR No. 130662 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
xxx."[14] But appellant discredits the above testimony because Alexander retracted. A mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible.[15] The rationale for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Moreover, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.[16]