This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-11-13 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Reyes' and Marcelo's affidavits partake of a recantation which is aimed to renounce their earlier testimonies and withdraw them formally and publicly.[8] Verily, recantations are viewed with suspicion and reservation. 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. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration.[9] Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable.[10] There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.[11] 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.[12] As aptly pointed out by the Court in Firaza v. People,[13] viz.: Indeed, it is a dangerous rule to set aside a testimony which has been solemnly taken before a court of justice in an open and free trial and under conditions precisely sought to discourage and forestall falsehood simply because one of the witnesses who had given the testimony later on changed his mind. Such a rule will make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. x x x. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.[27] Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.[28] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, Commissioner Empleo testified[33] that his computations were based on DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.[34] This Administrative Order took effect only on May 11, 1998, however, hence, the applicable valuation rules in this case remain to be those prescribed by DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94. | |||||