672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Credibility of Witnesses

ANNOTATION

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
By *
JULIANA C. AZARRAGA

________________

§ I. CourtÊs evaluation of testimony of witnesses,

p. 672
§ II. Exceptions to the rule, p. 674
§ III. Relationship between witness and victim, p.
674
§ IV. Testimony of a single witness; when sufficient
to convict, p. 675
§ V. Identification; when positive and clear to be
credible, p. 676
§ VI. Value and credibility of the testimony of a
child of tender years, p. 677
§ VII. Testimonies of retardates; when credible, p.
677
§ VIII. Inconsistencies in the testimony, p. 678
§ IX. Affirmative versus negative testimony; which
would prevail, p. 679
§ X. Delay or vascillation in reporting a crime or
identifying the perpetrator, p. 679
§ XI. Recantations; effect thereof on the credibility
of testimonial evidence, p. 680
§ XII. Findings of trial courts on credibility will not
be disturbed by the appellate courts;
Exceptions, p. 680

________________
„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 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
witness (People vs. Penaso, 326 SCRA 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 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,
2
which opportunity is denied to the
appellate tribunals.

_______________

1 People vs. Bernas, 309 SCRA 741 (1999).

2 People vs. 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 when3
considered would have affected the result of
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.
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).
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).

_______________

3 People vs. Acabo, 328 Phil. 378.

4 People vs. Kyamko, 222 SCRA 183.

675

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 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
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 must be accorded full faith 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
straightforward manner (People vs. Alagon, 325 SCRA
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
obviously fabricated alibi of accused (People vs. Swelto, 325
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
of the identification procedure (People vs. Gamer, 326
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
closely for a number of years (People vs. Tuppal, 395 SCRA
72).
Once a person gains familiarity with one another,
identification becomes an easy task even from a
considerable distance (People vs. Moralde, 395 SCRA 286).
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 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
beyond a shadow of a doubt (People vs. Zuniega, 352 SCRA
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
dismissed as a mere fabrication (People vs. Atienza, 326
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).
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.‰

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).

§ VIII. Inconsistencies in the testimony

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).
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 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
negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony (People vs.
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).
The rule is that affirmative testimony is far weightier
than a mere denial, especially when it comes from the
mouth of a credible witness (People vs. Collado, 353 SCRA
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
adequately explained (People vs. Paglinawan, 324 SCRA
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).
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
or frightful experience (People vs. Tio, 352 SCRA 295).
Eyewitnesses have a natural tendency to remain silent
rather than imperil their own lives and those of their
families (People vs. Abundo, 349 SCRA 477).
 § XI. Recantations; effect thereof on the credibility of
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
stand (People vs. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547).

§ 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).

··o0o··

681

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.