This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The fact that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim will not necessarily taint their testimonies. The weight of testimony of witnesses is neither impaired nor in any way affected by their relationship to the victim when there is no showing of improper motive on their part.[19] Relationship per se of a witness with the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[20] These prosecution witnesses are the most aggrieved parties, being the victim's widow and sister. Thus, their motive of putting the killers behind bars cannot be considered improper.[21] It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in avenging the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprit lest the guilty go unpunished.[22] | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| no avail as appellant was at large.[18] The records likewise show she did not file her sworn declaration against appellant until the latter was in custody.[19] Note that while the incident took place on November 10, 1996, appellant was apprehended only on August 16, 1997.[20] Appellant's allegation that it took Mrs. Bates more than nine months to make a criminal accusation against him before the police is, thus, correct. However, delay in reporting the crime or identifying the malefactors does not affect the credibility of a witness for as long as the delay is sufficiently explained.[21] When the police queried Mrs. Bates why she waited until appellant was arrested before filing her complaint with them, she disclosed that she feared appellant might kill her, too.[22] Fear of reprisal has been accepted by this Court as an adequate explanation for the delay or vacillation in filing criminal charges.[23] The delay in making the criminal accusation having thus been explained, her credibility as a witness remains unimpaired. Fifth, appellant argues that Mrs. Bates' credibility is further put into doubt since her statement that she saw appellant stabbing her son in the chest is contradicted by the autopsy findings that Danilo sustained stab wounds in the trunk. | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.[27] When Calabroso, Matos and Dumrique joined Sata inside the tricycle and fled towards Kiangan after Nacnac was stabbed they performed well-coordinated acts indicating a common purpose to steal the vehicle.[28] Conspiracy is also inferred not only from their conduct before and during the commission of the crime but also thereafter, showing that they acted in unison with each other.[29] Calabroso, Dumrique and Sata proceeded to Nueva Vizcaya to dispose of the motorcycle. Matos stayed behind as his companions promised to pick him up later. As promised, they returned to Kiangan still with the vehicle. Conspiracy having been proven, accused-appellants are equally liable for carnapping the tricycle of Nacnac.[30] | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Weak as it was, accused-appellant's alibi became all the more ineffectual when he failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time it was committed. He testified being in Passi, Iloilo, during the stabbing incident. Passi, Iloilo is only fifty (50) kilometers from Cabatuan, Iloilo, the place where the crime was committed. He did not offer any evidence to prove impossibility of access between the two (2) places when the crime transpired.[5] Significantly, the defense even failed to fully establish the presence of accused-appellant in Passi on the night of 13 May 1995. | |||||