Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 368 views

    Credibility of Witness Jurisprudence

    Uploaded by

    Jett Labilles
    1. Jurisprudence holds that for evidence to be believed, it must come from a credible witness and be credible itself based on human experience, observation, and what is generally accepted. Evidence that contradicts these cannot be accepted in court. 2. Evidence must not only come from a credible witness, but also be inherently credible based on common human experience and what can reasonably be seen as probable in the given circumstances. 3. A preliminary investigation is meant to realistically assess the merits of a case and determine if there is sufficient proof of a respondent's guilt to justify proceeding to trial, while also protecting the innocent from unfounded prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Credibility of Witness Jurisprudence

    Uploaded by

    Jett Labilles
    368 views2 pages
    1. Jurisprudence holds that for evidence to be believed, it must come from a credible witness and be credible itself based on human experience, observation, and what is generally accepted. Evidence that contradicts these cannot be accepted in court. 2. Evidence must not only come from a credible witness, but also be inherently credible based on common human experience and what can reasonably be seen as probable in the given circumstances. 3. A preliminary investigation is meant to realistically assess the merits of a case and determine if there is sufficient proof of a respondent's guilt to justify proceeding to trial, while also protecting the innocent from unfounded prosecution.

    Original Description:

    Jurisprudence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Jurisprudence holds that for evidence to be believed, it must come from a credible witness and be credible itself based on human experience, observation, and what is generally accepted. Evidence that contradicts these cannot be accepted in court. 2. Evidence must not only come from a credible witness, but also be inherently credible based on common human experience and what can reasonably be seen as probable in the given circumstances. 3. A preliminary investigation is meant to realistically assess the merits of a case and determine if there is sufficient proof of a respondent's guilt to justify proceeding to trial, while also protecting the innocent from unfounded prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    368 views2 pages

    Credibility of Witness Jurisprudence

    Uploaded by

    Jett Labilles
    1. Jurisprudence holds that for evidence to be believed, it must come from a credible witness and be credible itself based on human experience, observation, and what is generally accepted. Evidence that contradicts these cannot be accepted in court. 2. Evidence must not only come from a credible witness, but also be inherently credible based on common human experience and what can reasonably be seen as probable in the given circumstances. 3. A preliminary investigation is meant to realistically assess the merits of a case and determine if there is sufficient proof of a respondent's guilt to justify proceeding to trial, while also protecting the innocent from unfounded prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.

    Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be


    believed, it must not only come from a credible witness but must be
    credible in itself tested by human experience, observation, common
    knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the
    years1.

    Daggers v. Van Dyck2, illuminates:

    Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of


    a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the
    common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
    probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of
    human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge,
    observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
    belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance

    2. In People v. Quino3 evidence to be believed must, not only proceed


    from the mouth of a credible witness (which alone is already
    doubtful in the case at bench), but must be credible in itself, such
    that the common experience and observation of man can approve as
    probable under the circumstances. |||

    3. In the case of Abaya vs. Ang4, the Supreme Court ruled that “A
    preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of
    the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the criminal
    respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial
    court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal.
    Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is not intended
    to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a casual affair; the
    officer conducting the same investigates or inquires into the facts
    concerning the commission of the crime with the end in view of
    determining whether or not an information may be prepared against
    the accused. After all, the purpose of preliminary investigation is not
    only to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
    well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
    respondent therein is probably guilty thereof and should be held for

    1 People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011


    2 concurring opinion of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales in Lejano v. People, G.R. No.
    176389, 14 December 2010 citing 37 N.J. Eq. 130, 132 as cited in People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No.
    186417, July 27, 2011
    3 G.R. No. 105580, [May 17, 1994], 302 PHIL 422-428
    4 G.R. No. 178511. December 4, 2008
    trial; it is just as well for the purpose of securing the
    innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
    prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public
    accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and
    anxiety of a public trial.” (Emphasis supplied)

    4. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has


    been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a
    well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
    that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not
    mean 'actual or positive cause' nor does it import absolute certainty.
    It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
    belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry . . .
    whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.
    It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
    complained of constitutes the offense charged5

    5Reyes v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 213163-78, 213540-41, 213542-43, 215880-94 &
    213475-76, [March 15, 2016] citing Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 582 Phil. 505, 518-519 (2008);
    emphases and underscoring supplied.

    You might also like