672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ANNOTATED
Credibility of W itn itn esses A N N O T A T I O N CREDIB CREDIBILITY ILITY OF WITNESSES By * JULIANA C. AZARRAGA ________________
§ I. CourtÊs evaluation of testimony of witnesses, witnesses , p. 672 § II. II. Exceptions to the the rul rule e, p. 674 § III. Relationship Relationship between witness and victim, victim, p. 674 § IV. Testimony of a single witness; when sufficient to convict, convict, p. 675 § V. V. Identification; when positive and clear to be credible,, p. 676 credible § VI. V Value alue and credibility of the testimony of a child of tender years, years, p. 677 § VII. Testimonies of retardates; when credible, credible, p. 677 § VIII. Inconsistencies in the testimony, testimony , p. 678 § IX. Affirmative versus negative testimon testimony; y; which would prevail, prevail, p. 679 § X. Delay or vascillation in reporting a crime or identifying the perpetrator, perpetrator, p. 679 § XI. Recantations; effect thereof on the credibility of testimonial evidence, evidence, p. 680 § XII. Findings of trial courts on credibility will not be disturbed by the appellate courts; Exceptions,, p. 680 Exceptions ________________
„The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by the trial judge.‰
§ I. CourtÊs evaluation of testimony of witnesses The doctrinal principles guiding the court in assessing the credibility of witnesses are: (1) The reviewing court will not _______________ * RTC
Judge, Branch 15, Roxas City. 673
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 2 005
673
Credibility of Witnesses disturb the findings of the lower courts unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case; (2) The findings of the trial court respecting the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) A witness who testified in clear, positive, and convincing manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible People vs. Penaso, 326 SCRA 311). witness ( People 311). On the credibility of witnesses, we have often held that the assessment of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court are held binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstance of weight and substance have1 been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. „Appellate courts will not interfere with the judgment of trial courts in passing upon the credibility of the witnesses unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked or the significance of which it has misapprehended or interpreted.‰ ( People People vs. Alao, 322
SCRA 380.
The rule is well-settled that the findings of facts of the court a quo and its assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnessÊ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the 2 appellate tribunals. _______________ 1 People
vs. Bernas Bernas, 309 SCRA 741 (1999).
2 People
vs. Silvano Silvano (Per Curiam-En Banc) 309 SCRA 362. 674
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Credibility of Witnesses
§ II. Exceptions to the rule Where cogent reasons were shown that the court a quo had overlooked or disregarded material facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the result of 3 the case,4 or justify its departure from its assessments and findings.
§ III. Relationship between witness and victim The fact that the witnesses were the daughter and the widow of the deceased could not impair their credibility. Blood or conjugal relationship between a witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the witness. On the contrary, relationship itself could strengthen credibility in a particular case, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other then the actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence to blame one who is innocent of the crime People vs. Rendoque, 322 SCRA 622, citing People vs. ( People Realin, 301 SCRA 495). Relatives of a victim of a crime have a natural knack for
remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned of obtaining justice for the victim by bringing the malefactors to the face of the law People vs. Nardo, 353 SCRA 339). ( People Mere relationship of a dramatis personae to a witness does not automatically impair the latterÊs credibility nor mean that his testimony would be rendered less worthy absent any improper motive which can be ascribed to him People vs. Icalla, 353 SCRA 815). ( People _______________ 3 People
vs. Acabo Acabo, 328 Phil. 378.
4 People
vs. Kyamko Kyamko, 222 SCRA 183. 675
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 2 005
675
Credibility of Witnesses
§ IV. Testimony of a single witness; when sufficient to convict The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction. A testimony is credible if it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered in a spontaneous, natural and straightforward manner (Sevalle vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 33, citing People vs. Lazo, 198 SCRA 274). In the above cited case of Sevalle, the Court, speaking through Justice Mendoza, said: „Petitioner has not shown that Rosemarie has any ulterior motive in testifying against him. Rosemarie knew that by lying she would be enabling the real culprit to go scot-free. Human experience tells us that a person, in the absence of a showing of any ill motive, would not impute a grave crime upon another unless the same is true ( People vs. Geguira, 328 SCRA 11). In the absence of evidence or any indicium that the prosecutionÊs main witness harbored ill will towards petitioner, her testimony must be presumed to be true People vs. Galano, 327 SCRA 462). In People vs. Pama (216 ( People SCRA 385 [1992]), this Court held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in the heinous crime, the witnessÊ testimony testimony must be accorded full faith f aith and credit.‰ Criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt ( People vs. Abubu, 322 SCRA 407). The well-entrenched rule is that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and has been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a People vs. Alagon, 325 SCRA straightforward manner ( People 297). 676
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Credibility of Witnesses
§ V. Identification; when positive and clear to be credible The positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime by the prosecution witnesses, absent any showing of ill motive must prevail over the weak and People vs. Swelto, 325 obviously fabricated alibi of accused ( People SCRA 41). Where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both victim and accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to him for testifying against the accused, then his version of the story deserves much weight ( People vs. Tolibas, 325 SCRA 453). Factors to be considered in order to resolve the admissibility of an out-of-court identification of suspects are: (1) the witnessÊ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witnessÊ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness
People vs. Gamer, 326 of the identification procedure ( People SCRA 660). The sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and People vs. Tuppal, 395 SCRA closely for a number of years ( People 72). Once a person gains familiarity with one another, identification becomes an easy task even from a People vs. Moralde, 395 SCRA 286). considerable distance ( People Before the rule that positive identification prevails over mere denial and alibi may apply, it is necessary that the credibility of the eyewitness be first put beyond question ( People vs. Crispin, 327 SCRA 167). Unless expressly required by law, the testimony of a single witness, if found credible and positive, is sufficient to convict, for the truth is established not by the number of witnesses 677
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 2 005
677
Credibility of Witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies·criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convinced the court of the guilt of the accused People vs. Zuniega, 352 SCRA beyond a shadow of a doubt ( People 403).
§ VI. Value and credibility of the testimony of a child of tender years Testimonies of victims who are young and of tender age deserve full faith and credence and should not be so easily People vs. Atienza, 326 dismissed as a mere fabrication ( People SCRA 802). The requirements of a childÊs competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection; and (c) capacity of communication ( Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451).
§ VII. Testimonies of retardates; when credible
Although the complainant may be a retardate, she is nevertheless competent to testify if she is able to tell the court what the accused had done to her and to answer the questions of both the prosecutor and the defense counsel People vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA 180). ( People Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: „SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications .·Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.‰
Section 21, Rule 130 of the same Rules of Court, provides: „SEC. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity.·The following persons cannot be witnesses: 678
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Credibility of Witnesses (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully.‰ truthfully.‰
It is well-established that any child regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving can make known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts which he is examined Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451). ( Republic
§ VIII. Inconsistencies in the testimony Variations Variations in the declarations of witnesses respecting collateral, peripheral and incidental matters do not impair the verisimilitude of the testimonies of such witnesses People vs. Patoc, 398 SCRA 62). ( People Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy the witnessesÊ credibility·what is important is that the
testimonies agree on essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole ( People vs. Invencion, 398 SCRA 592). Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of the testimonies ( People vs. Amazan, 349 SCRA 218). Perfect recall and a flawless testimony cannot be expected from a witness who is testifying almost six years after the event. The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part as the corroborative evidence or improbability of the case may require ( Talay vs. Court of Appeals, 398 SCRA 185). A witness who is telling the truth is not always expected to give a perfectly concise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory·honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, 679
VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 2 005
679
Credibility of Witnesses rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses ( People vs. Saladino, 355 SCRA 819). Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable ( People vs. Abundo, 349 SCRA 577). The alleged inconsistencies even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they People vs. negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony ( People Silvano, 350 SCRA 650).
§ IX. Affirmative versus negative testimony; which would prevail Affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the fact asserted easily overrides negative testimony People vs. Dela Piedra, 350 SCRA 163). ( People The rule is that affirmative testimony is far weightier
than a mere denial, especially when it comes from the People vs. Collado, 353 SCRA mouth of a credible witness ( People 381).
§ X. Delay or vascillation in reporting a crime or identifying the perpetrator Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a felony does not affect his credibility if such delay is People vs. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA adequately explained ( People 97). Delay or vascillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained ( People vs. Lovedorial , 349 SCRA 402). The fact that it took a witness and the wife of the victim almost eight (8) years before they filed a criminal complaint against the accused cannot be taken against them where their initial reluctance to implicate accused is undoubtedly borne 680
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Credibility of Witnesses out of fear given the latterÊs reputation in the community People vs. Navarro, 351 SCRA 462). ( People An eyewitnessÊ account cannot be disregarded on account of the delay in its reporting, so long as the delay is justified·witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions from witnesses ( People vs. Zuniega, 352 SCRA 402). Persons do not necessarily react uniformly to a given situation, given that what may be natural to one may be strange to another ( People vs. Consejero, 352 SCRA 376). Different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange Tio, 352 SCRA 295). or frightful experience ( People vs. Tio Eyewitnesses have a natural tendency to remain silent rather than imperil their own lives and those of their People vs. Abundo, 349 SCRA 477). families ( People
§ XI. Recantations; effect thereof on the credibility of testimonial testimonial evidence A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and especially the demeanor of the witness on the witness People vs. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547). stand ( People
§ XII. Findings of trial courts on credibility will not be disturbed by the appellate courts; Exceptions The rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial courts admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at clearly unsupported by the evidence People vs. Espina, 326 SCRA 753). ( People ··o0o·· 681
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.