This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| silent. In open court, his counsel manifested that he was waiving his right to present evidence in his defense. Mamarion confirmed said manifestation, thus: COURT: Q Your lawyer declared in Court that you are not adducing any evidence by way of your defense. Did your lawyer give you that information? JOHN MAMARION Yes, Your Honor. COURT: Q Do you confirm that information of your lawyer? A Yes, your Honor. Q Did your lawyer explain to you the consequences of your not presenting evidence? A Yes, Sir. Q Now, the Court will explain to you that if you do not present any evidence for your own behalf the case will be decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution against you. Do you understand that? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Do you still insist that you will not present any evidence? A Yes, Your Honor. Q And you confirm to the Court that you were not enticed or persuaded by your lawyer, but this is your own voluntary decision that you will not be presenting evidence? Of course, upon conferring with your lawyer? A Yes, Your Honor. Q I think you are aware that this is a heinous crime that you are charged with in this court? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Are you aware of the penalty that may be imposed if you are found guilty of the offense? A Yes, Your Honor. Q What do you know? A Death penalty. Q And inspite of that, are you still insisting that you will not testify here, or you will not present any other witness to testify on your behalf? A Yes, Your Honor.[81] His silence works against him as it goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time.[82] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we explain why we cannot rely on the testimony of prosecution witness Isabelo Jamile. The oft-quoted rule is that a witness would not normally accuse another of such a grave offense if it were not true. The rule is that, if the accused were truly innocent, it would be against the natural order of human nature and the presumption of good faith for a witness to falsely testify against him.[17] However, we find that here the legal truism does not apply. Central is the testimony of Rodulfo Canonigo that Isabelo Jamile participated in the attempt to rob accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin. Rodulfo Canonigo testified that Isabelo Jamile hit accused-appellant with a piece of wood twice on the forehead. If these were bare assertions, we would hesitate to accept this narrative. However, there is medical testimony that accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin suffered injuries, specifically, "two multiple abrasions on the forehead," caused by the application thereto of a hard object.[18] The doctor who examined accused-appellant Rodulfo Villarin the day after the incident stated that the injuries he suffered could be "caused by one who is being mauled by several persons."[19] This corroborates the defense's version and gives us reasonable doubt of accused-appellant's guilt. When a circumstance is capable of two interpretations, one consistent with the accused's guilt, and one with his innocence, the latter must prevail.[20] | |||||
|
2001-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we note that Alba and Gortayo were not immediately apprehended even after a warrant was issued for their arrest. They tried to flee. Flight indicates guilt. Accused-appellants' act of not confronting their accuser goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused with wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time.[30] | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| It is true that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence.[19] It can be shown by the conduct of accused-appellants, before, during and after the commission of the crime. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[20] Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused, evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action or community of interest.[21] Conspiracy is not present in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| is to express his innocence at the first opportune time.[40] However, unlike the trial court, we find the existence of conspiracy between the two accused-appellants. Conspiracy is shown by the conduct of accused-appellants, before, during and after the commission of the crime. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of | |||||