This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We concur with the CA on the attendance of treachery. The petitioners mounted their deadly assault with suddenness and without the victim being aware of its imminence. Neither an altercation between the victim and the assailants had preceded the assault, nor had the victim provoked the assault in the slightest. The assailants had designed their assault to be swift and unexpected, in order to deprive their victim of the opportunity to defend himself.[25] Such manner constituted a deliberate adoption of a method of attack that ensured their unhampered execution of the crime. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Also, appellant attempted to impugn the credibility of the prosecution witnesses on account of their relationship with the victim. However, the mere fact that Jovelyn and Jonel Felizario are relatives of the victim and that Glen is the victim's friend does not prove bias or partiality on their part sufficient to undermine the veracity of their testimonies. It was not shown that they had any ill motive that drove them to make false accusations against appellant. Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility of a witness. Besides, the natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits; otherwise, the guilty would go unpunished.[24] Further, Glen is a good friend of both the appellant and the victim. There is no showing of any reason for him to testify falsely in favor of one and against the other. | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As the widow of the victim and lone witness to the crime, Merlinda Montecino would not impute the killing of her husband on accused-appellants if she was not certain that they were his tormentors. She had no reason to. A witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in establishing the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[6] | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, a ballistics examination is not indispensable, and even if another weapon was in fact actually used in killing the victim, still the accused cannot excape criminal liability therefor as he was already positively identified.[18] Because credible witnesses had already demonstrated accused-appellants' culpability, there was no need to present further evidence linking them to the crime. There is no requirement of a certain quantum of evidence before one may be justly convicted of an offense except when specifically required by law. The only requisite then is that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.[19] | |||||