Witness credibility impaired by contradictions, improbabilities in identification of accused

In his direct testimony, Tan categorically stated that he saw appellant Nemesio disembark from the red jeep. When cross-examined, Tan gave a conflicting narrative. And when asked how he was able to distinguish the voice of Nemesio from the rest, Tan compounded the contradiction. The Court is baffled at how Tan was able to pinpoint Nemesios location outside the precinct when he admitted on cross-examination that he did not know or see where Nemesio went after calling the victim. In fact, he testified that he was attending to the needs of five voters at the time while seated with his back against the red jeep located five meters away. How can he therefore declare with certainty that Nemesio lowered the trapal or that Nemesio and Virgilio boarded the jeep and occupied the front seat? Or, that Nemesio really went back to the jeep? How was he able to see the persons who sat beside the victim and account for the ten passengers of the jeep? The answers to these questions hinge precariously on Tans unreliable narrative which placed all the more the trial courts finding of guilt in a shadow of doubt. [G.R. No. 119722. December 2, 1996]

Popular Posts