This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-03-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It is appellants' posture that the immediate sale to SPO4 Jamisolamin of an enormous amount of marijuana hashish on the evening of July 8, 1997, even as they met Jamisolamin only that evening, is not in conformity with knowledge, nor consistent with the experience of mankind, hence incredible and unworthy of belief.[6] On this score, they invoke the ruling in People v. Pagaura,[7]where the Court stated inter alia:The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses not only appear to be improbable but also incredible. We find it rather foolish that one who peddles illegal drugs would boldly and unashamedly present his wares to total strangers, lest he be caught in flagrante when, as has been demonstrated in similar cases, such nefarious deals are carried on with utmost secrecy or whispers to avoid detection. Pagaura, however, stems from an entirely different factual milieu. There, the accused approached the police-witnesses who were then in civilian clothes requesting the latter's assistance in securing a boat ticket at the wharf. Pagaura allegedly insisted on their help since he was afraid of the inspection due to his black bag containing a kilo of marijuana. To convince the men, Pagaura allegedly opened his bag right then and there to show them the marijuana. | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As held in People vs. Docdoc,[37] the testimony of the offended party in a rape case should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can be easily concocted. In any prosecution for rape the testimony of the complaining witness if credible would be sufficient to convict the accused.[38] Hence, the greatest degree of care and caution must be exercised before full faith and credit is given to complainant's testimony. Basic is the rule that the testimonial evidence should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.[39] | |||||
|
2001-04-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant contends that Sinclaire De Guzman's story is incredible and difficult to believe. He stresses the fact that he has been blind for 20 years and that complainant could have simply pushed him away or easily escaped from his clutches had he really tried to rape her. That she did not means that he did not even attempt to molest her.[20] We agree with accused-appellant. Courts are guided by the following principles in adjudging rape cases: (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the same; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[21] By the very nature of the crime, judgments in rape cases turn on the credibility of the complainant as only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.[22] In several cases,[23] we have held that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to warrant a conviction, provided that such is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. However, we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should not be received with precipitate credulity but with the utmost caution.[24] The test for determining the credibility of complainant's testimony is whether it is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[25] While we are mindful of the rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect, and even finality, on appeal, this does not preclude a re-evaluation of the evidence to determine whether a fact or circumstance has not been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.[26] We have not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction where there are strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge is false.[27] In this case, several circumstances lead us to doubt complainant's claim that she was raped by accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| xxx. Malou would now have this Court believe that during all this time, the appellant's hand covered her mouth, preventing her from shouting for help. However, based on Malou's account, it would take superb acrobatic skill for the appellant to have carried out such an elaborate sexual act on an unwilling victim, without removing his hand over her mouth. Malou's claim simply goes against human experience.[22] For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[23] | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, and carriage and mien.[30] Equally, when a person fabricates a story, he usually adopts a simple account because a complex one might lead to entanglement from which he may find it hard to extricate himself. Along the same line, the experience of the courts and the general observations of humanity teach us that the natural limitations of our inventive faculties are such that if a witness delivers in court a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements which can be readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor the falsity of his message.[31] Aside from this, it is not also unusual that the witness may have been coached before he is called to the stand to testify. | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| discharge its burden, as in the instant case, then it is not only the accused's right to be freed; it is, even more, the court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[15] Notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish accused-appellant's guilt for rape, we find grounds to convict him of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, based on the evidence presented below. The records clearly show that accused-appellant kissed Haidie on the | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible that lies outside of judicial cognizance.[15] In this wise, the testimony of appellant barely meets the minimum standard of credibility. | |||||