Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NESTOR SEDUCO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 138265 2003-05-29	PEOPLE v. ROGER LAMASAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
In any event, sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestions and inquiries.[13]
	GR No. 133224 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BULAN BELLOSILLO, J.
The question of inconsistency arose from the sworn statement executed by Danilo Sause before the police.[13] Inconsistencies between the testimony and the sworn statement were explained to be due to the fact that affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by others and affiants are only made to sign them.[14] Certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom discredit the declarant.[15] Sworn statements, taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiry.[16] They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.[17] In other words, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[18]
	GR No. 133814 2001-07-17	PEOPLE v. ANDRES ORTIZ Y PEBRERO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
With respect to the contradictions between the sworn statement and testimony in court of PO3 Angelito Salas, it has been observed that such inconsistencies are oftentimes due to the fact that affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by others and are only signed by the affiants.[19] As this Court pointed out in People vs. Nestor Seduco:[20] "[C]ertain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom could discredit the declarant.[21] Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries."[22] They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.[23] Our case law is unequivocal in saying that the testimony of a witness prevails over an affidavit.[24] In short, affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations,[25] or, more bluntly stated, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[26]