This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the second and third issues, which we shall discuss together. Once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability.[29] In this case, appellant clearly failed to discharge his burden. His uncorroborated, self-serving declaration of self-defense pales in the light of the testimonies of two impartial eyewitnesses as well as the medical evidence presented by the prosecution. As observed by the Solicitor General, when the appellant claimed self-defense, he must prove that the killing was justified clearly and convincingly on the strength of his own evidence.[30] Appellant can not rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.[31] To say that the prosecution should have rebutted appellant's claim of self-defense, when appellant failed in his task of proving it, would be a procedural heresy. | |||||
|
2001-08-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In essence, what appellant Dick puts at issue is the trial court's appreciation of factual details of the buy-bust. Suffice it to say that we have in numerous cases made clear the policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual findings of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it,[51] having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[52] In Dick's case as also in Chua's own, we are not prepared to disbelieve and disregard the trial court's factual findings. | |||||
|
2000-06-19 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| There is no doubt therefore, that Anacita had a good look at her husband's assailant and that she actually saw appellant stab Ambrocio as she was only a meter away from them, behind her husband who was facing appellant. She could not have mistaken another man for appellant because being neighbors, he was familiar to her.[16] Aside from being her neighbor, appellant even admitted that he used to be a customer in the Benedictos' sari-sari store where he would buy cooking needs. Familiarity with the physical features, particularly those of the face, is the best way to identify a person.[17] Thus, in the absence of an established ill motive on the part of Anacita, her identification of appellant as her husband's killer should be given full faith and credit, her relationship with the victim notwithstanding. Relationship with the victim per se is not proof of prejudice.[18] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The defense failed to attribute any ill-motive on the part of Romualda for testifying on accused-appellant Maximo's admission and therefore the presumption that in so testifying, she was impelled by no other reason than to tell the truth, stands. The fact that she is related to two of the victims did not render her testimony incredible. Relationship per se is not proof of prejudice.[36] She might have been mistaken as to the date when she talked with accused-appellant Maximo while he was detained considering the more than three-year gap between June 1985 and September to October 1988 when Romualda testified. However, it is not necessary that the witness should be able to fix accurately the date of the conversation in which the admission was made. What is important is that the witness is able to state the substance of the conversation or declaration.[37] | |||||