This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The claim of Felicita that appellant confessed to the killing of Uy must be corroborated to be given credence. Like any other testimony, Felicita's statements cannot be readily accepted hook, line and sinker. More important, the testimony of a state witness must be received with great caution and carefully scrutinized. The rule is that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof of a moral certainty that the latter committed the crime. It must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances, and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest.[35] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Did the lower courts properly consider the testimony of dela Cruz? It is a jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof with a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime. The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest.[20] The testimony of dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less than the victim himself, Oliver, as well as Pedro. | |||||