Witnesses' Credibility

PROBLEM:

At the roadside fronting the house of A, he was shot by B. Then C grabbed the gun from B and also fired at A twice hitting him. W, the wife of A, testified that she was standing by the window of their house waiting for her husband. A was alongside the road also waiting for his son to bring in their cows. Thus, W says she clearly saw how her husband was shot by the accused B and C. Similarly, S, a 9-year old son was about that time bringing in their cows from the other side of river and was going to the side where his father was waiting. S also testified that he saw B shot his father. 

The defense questioned the credibility of the witnesses. First, why is the wife waiting for her husband to bring in their cows at that time when she should have been busy with their other children as it was supper time. Second, the inconsistency of S’ testimony was also questioned, that when he went out of the house, his father was already dead.  

ANSWER: 

Citing the case of People vs Salazar (GRN 84891, Apri17, 1993), one's credibility cannot be attacked simply by saying that he should not have acted the way he did. The court had held that people react differently to a situation. The innate differences in man make each one unique by himself. Man's actions and reactions cannot be stereotyped. Thus, W cannot be faulted if she chose to wait for her husband and son by the window rather than do other chores. There is nothing unnatural in such action that would militate against her credibility. 

As to S’ apparently contradictory statements that he saw the shooting of his father, with his other declaration, that when he went out that evening, his father was already dead, may have erred for he was only 9 years old. But the error is not fatal. We cannot expect a boy of tender age to understand every question asked of him in the course of his direct examination, much less, during his cross-examination. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court. 

Moreover, in the same case, citing People vs Nalan (GRN 86640, January 25, 1991), it has been held that the most honest witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair their credibility. 

It cannot also be questioned that the prosecution witnesses being relatives of the victim are biased witnesses. The fact that prosecution witnesses are the wife and son of the victim does not make them incompetent witnesses nor detract from the credit due them (People vs Cuyo, GRN 76211, April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 447). Mere relationship to a party cannot militate against the credibility of witnesses or be taken as destructive of the witnesses' credibility (People v. Penones, GRN 71553, August 16, 1991, 200 SCRA 624). 

Practicum II Research Paper No. 2 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses onJanuary 30, 2009.