People vs.

Bisda
Facts: Generosa, one of the accused, was the aunt of one of the yayas of the
Soriano family. Together with Alma, the two went to the school of Angela and took
her before she boarded the school bus. They detained Angela for six days until the
police rescued her. Alma gave her testimony to the police saying that Generosa
introduced Angela to Alma as her niece and she was merely looking out for the child
while Generosa did errands for her as she was Almas employee. Angelas
statement was different from that of Almas. Generosa surrendered and gave her
statement to an officer saying that they kidnapped Angela. They were found guilty
of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom by the trial court. One of the contentions of
the accused is that Angela did not understood the nature of oath before she took
the witness stand.
Issue: Whether prosecution failed to establish that Angela understood the nature of
an oath and the need for her to tell the truth.
Ruling: Angela took an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth" before she testified on direct examination. There was nary a whimper of
protest or objection on the part of the appellants to Angela's competence as a
witness. After the prosecution terminated its direct examination, the appellants
thereafter cross-examined Angela extensively and intensively on the matter of her
testimony on direct examination. It was only in this Court that the appellants raised
the matter for the first time, that there was failure on the part of the prosecution to
examine Angela on the nature of her oath, and to ascertain whether she had the
capacity to distinguish right from wrong. It is too late in the day for the appellants to
raise the issue.

People vs. Guamos

Facts: Michelle declared in open court that, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
while she was on her way from school to her grandfather's house, she was accosted
by Guamos. Guamos dragged her to the poultry house of her grandfather. There in
the poultry house, Guamos removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her sex
organ. Two days later, Michelle's mother discovered traces of blood in Michelle's
underpants. She asked her daughter about the traces of blood and Michelle, after a
while, admitted that she and been sexually assaulted. She told her parents that it
was "Poks" who had sexually abused her. Guamos seeks to discredit and exclude
the testimony of the rape victim upon the ground that she had not answered the
questions posed to her at cross-examination during trial.
Issue: Whether Michelles testimony should be excluded as evidence.
Ruling: Defense counsel did not ask the Court to enforce his right and to compel
the witness (Michelle) to perform her duty. As noted earlier, the trial judge had
instructed defense counsel to simplify his questions. Defense counsel, for his part,
neither complained about this directive nor complied with it.
SC considers that accused Guamos had waived his right to object to the
admissibility of Michelle Dolorical's testimony on direct examination upon the
ground that she had not answered all of the questioned posed to her on crossexamination. The trial court believed that that failure had not affected the credibility
of Michelle Dolorical's direct testimony. We find no sufficient reason for overturning
this finding of the trial court.

Dans vs. People

Facts: The LRTA and the PGHFI, represented by Dans and Marcos, respectively,
approved three deeds. By virtue of these agreements, two vacant LRTA lots were
leased out to the PGHFI.Because of these deeds, petitioners were charged with
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
petitioners pleaded "not guilty" to all of the charges. Petitioners consider erroneous
the active participation of the members of the Sandiganbayan's First Division during
the hearing of Cuervo's testimony. Petitioners point out that the limitations on the
right of judges to ask questions during the trial were not observed by the
Sandiganbayan. They accuse Justice Garchitorena of acting more of a prosecutor
than the impartial judge he is supposed to be, particularly during the examination of
Cuervo.
Issue: Whether petitioners have the right to object from Sandiganbayans line of
questioning.
Ruling: none of them ever objected to such queries during the trial. Neither did
they attempt to salvage the situation by asking questions on re-direct examination
if they harbored the impression that the court's cross-examination seriously
prejudiced their case. It is now too late in the day to object to the alleged leading,
misleading, and badgering questions of the Presiding Justice Garchitorena and to
ask (the court) to expunge the answers thereto from the record. Needless to say,
they should have done so when the supposed objectionable nature of the questions
and/or answers were propounded or given. (Section 36, Rule 132, 1985 Rules on
Evidence).

People vs. De Guzman

Facts: One evening, on her way home, Gilda was waiting for a tricycle at the gate of
their village. Accused Gener offered her a ride which she accepted as she was
familiar with him, having seen him and rode his tricycle before. Gener followed a
different route to Gildas house and stopped near an unfinished house claiming that
the tricycle malfunctioned. Gilda tried to walk away but was embraced from behind
by Gener. He then raped her and threatened not to tell anyone what happened or
he would kill her and her family. Gilda ran towards her house and told her mother
and her husband what happened to her. Accused was apprehended. He was charged
with the crime of rape by the trial court. He contended that Gilda did not positively
identify him, hence, conviction upon him must be reversed.
Issue: Whether Gilda positively identified the accused who raped her.
Ruling: Neither is the SC persuaded by the claim that Gilda was not able to
positively identify the accused. He was familiar to Gilda one or two weeks before the
incident because she saw him driving a tricycle and had, in fact, been once a
passenger of his. She saw him clearly at the guardhouse before the incident
because the guardhouse was well-lit; she was his passenger that evening until he
stopped his tricycle near the unfinished house; and she had ample opportunity to
see and recognize him during the assault. Then, Gilda did not hesitate to point to
and identify the accused as her rapist when the latter was brought by the policemen
to the house of Tony Antonio. The accused's defense of alibi, which is the weakest of
all defenses for it is easy to concoct and fabricate, cannot prevail over his positive
identification by Gilda.

People vs. Velasco

Facts: One night, Leonardo Lucaban saw the victim Valencia grabbed a man and
later on let him go. Then, two men approached the victim asked the same why he
did not shoot the man he earlier grabbed, to which he replied that he did not have a
gun. Valencia walked away and was stabbed at the back by one of the men.
Lucaban was about six armslength from the victim. The companion of the assailant
confronted Lucaban as he shouted "ilag" (duck). Lucaban immediately ran towards a
guardhouse. It was there where he heard two gunshots. 16 He saw the assailant and
his companion running towards Happy Land, Tondo, Manila 17 while the person
whom Valencia grabbed was running towards Herbosa St., Tondo, Manila. Velasco
was charged by the trial court of the crime of murder. He assailed the credibility of
Lucabans inconsistent testimonies and having failed to positively identify him at
first.
Issue: Whether Lucabans testimony is credible to be admitted as evidence against
the accused.
Ruling: It is not totally unheard of for a person who has witnessed a crime and
recognized its perpetrators to deny knowledge of the identity of these malefactors
for fear of reprisals against his life or that of his family. We have held in a number of
cases that it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance
about getting involved in a criminal case, as in fact the natural reticence of most
people to get involved is of judicial notice.
We do not deem the deficiencies of Lucaban in his testimonies so material as to put
the trustworthiness of said witness open to serious doubt. Minor inconsistencies do
not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole. Moreover
discrepancies between sworn statements or affidavits and testimonies made at the
witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witnesses.