Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 218 views

    Evidence, F) Conduct and Character Case People Vs Nardo

    Uploaded by

    Mar Jan Guy
    This case involves an automatic review of a trial court decision convicting a man named Nardo of raping his 14-year-old daughter. At trial, the defense argued that the daughter was not credible and had lied in the past. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that past lies about petty matters did not destroy the daughter's credibility about such a serious crime. The Court also held that a witness testifying about the defendant's character should not receive special treatment just for being a lawyer. Minor inconsistencies in the daughter's testimony strengthened her credibility and did not undermine the substance of her declaration about the rape.

    Copyright:

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

    Evidence, F) Conduct and Character Case People Vs Nardo

    Uploaded by

    Mar Jan Guy
    218 views2 pages
    This case involves an automatic review of a trial court decision convicting a man named Nardo of raping his 14-year-old daughter. At trial, the defense argued that the daughter was not credible and had lied in the past. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that past lies about petty matters did not destroy the daughter's credibility about such a serious crime. The Court also held that a witness testifying about the defendant's character should not receive special treatment just for being a lawyer. Minor inconsistencies in the daughter's testimony strengthened her credibility and did not undermine the substance of her declaration about the rape.

    Original Description:

    evidence

    Original Title

    Evidence, F) Conduct and Character Case People vs Nardo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an automatic review of a trial court decision convicting a man named Nardo of raping his 14-year-old daughter. At trial, the defense argued that the daughter was not credible and had lied in the past. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that past lies about petty matters did not destroy the daughter's credibility about such a serious crime. The Court also held that a witness testifying about the defendant's character should not receive special treatment just for being a lawyer. Minor inconsistencies in the daughter's testimony strengthened her credibility and did not undermine the substance of her declaration about the rape.

    Copyright:

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

    Evidence, F) Conduct and Character Case People Vs Nardo

    Uploaded by

    Mar Jan Guy
    This case involves an automatic review of a trial court decision convicting a man named Nardo of raping his 14-year-old daughter. At trial, the defense argued that the daughter was not credible and had lied in the past. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that past lies about petty matters did not destroy the daughter's credibility about such a serious crime. The Court also held that a witness testifying about the defendant's character should not receive special treatment just for being a lawyer. Minor inconsistencies in the daughter's testimony strengthened her credibility and did not undermine the substance of her declaration about the rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    People Vs Nardo

    Doctrine: Rule 130, Section 34, of the Rules of Court provides that:
    "Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
    admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same or a similar
    thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent
    or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage,
    and the like. In the case at bar, no special privilege should be accorded
    him by the trial court by reason of his being a member of the bar. He
    did not appear in that case as an officer of the court but as a mere
    witness, and hence should be treated as one.
    The case:
    This case is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial
    Court of Legazpi City, Albay, Branch III, which imposed on accusedappellant the death penalty for rape in Criminal Case No. 7170.
    Facts:
    The victim, Lorielyn Nardo, is the eldest daughter of accusedappellant. She was born on September 11, 1981 and, at the time of the
    incident, was fourteen (14) years old. During the trial, the defense
    endeavored to portray the victim as an incorrigible liar. Occasions were
    cited wherein the victim supposedly lied in order to obtain money or
    her parents' permission to leave the house. The defense also presented
    Atty. Gonzales (employer of the accused) as a witness which describes
    the victim as the one capable of concocting lies.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the crime of rape was established.
    Ruling:
    While lying may constitute a habit, the court believes that the
    falsehoods committed by the victim assuming them for the moment to
    be true, are petty and inconsequential. They are not as serious as
    charging one's own father of the sordid crime of rape, with all of its
    serious repercussions. Rule 130, Section 34, of the Rules of Court
    provides that: "Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
    one time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do the same
    or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a

    specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,


    custom or usage, and the like."
    On the argument of the accused-appellant that the trial court should
    have given credence to the witness, Atty. Santer G. Gonzales, because
    he is a member of the bar, the court reasoned out that the witness
    took the witness stand not as a lawyer but as an ordinary person. He
    testified in his capacity as accused-appellant's employer. As such, no
    special privilege should be accorded him by the trial court by reason of
    his being a member of the bar. He did not appear in that case as an
    officer of the court but as a mere witness, and hence should be treated
    as one.
    Sifting through the entire body of evidence presented in this case, the
    court find nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of accusedappellant's guilt. While there may be some inconsistencies in the
    testimony of the victim, these are considered as minor inconsistencies
    which serve to strengthen her credibility as they are badges of truth
    rather than indicia of falsehood. Minor inconsistencies do not affect the
    credibility of witnesses, as they may even tend to strengthen rather
    than weaken their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of
    prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral
    matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their
    veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor flaws may even
    enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized
    falsities. Besides, a rape victim cannot be expected to recall vividly all
    the sordid details of the violation committed against her virtue.

    You might also like