This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Q. Mr. Witness, so you are telling us that the failure to present pictures of the wounds at the back of the deceased was because you forgot to instruct the photographer to do that? A. Yes, sir. [51] It is of no moment that in her sworn affidavit,[52] she omitted to mention the hackwounds which her father sustained at his back. Ex parte affidavits, which are often incomplete and inaccurate, need not prevail over credible statements of a witness on the stand, particularly when the defense had the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness,[53] such as in the case at bar. Moreover, even if she was a daughter of the victim, it does not follow that her testimony was biased. The trial court, having had the opportunity to observe the mien of the all the witnesses presented by the prosecution and the defense, chose to believe Cristeta's testimony over that of the appellants'. The unbending jurisprudence is that findings of trial courts on the matter of credibility of the witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. The private complainant's relationship with the victim does not disqualify her from testifying in the criminal case involving her relative or automatically sully her testimony with the stain of bias.[54] It would be unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone else other than the actual culprit himself. Nothing was shown to indicate in any way that the witness was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant.[55] In fact, appellant Jenelito Ibañez testified that they had a good relationship with Cristeta.[56] This underscores her credibility as a witness. | |||||