This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Even the theory of the defense that identification of the petitioner by Manalangsang and Cañada is unlikely due allegedly to the lack of sufficient illumination at the scene of the crime, has been overcome by the fact that there are lampposts and signboards in the subject area which can provide illumination despite the black of night. Indeed, even assuming arguendo that the lampposts were not functioning at the time, the headlights of passing vehicles provided sufficient illumination at the crime scene.[20] "The Court has previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize another."[21] Similarly, the headlights of vehicles are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify individuals at a distance of four to ten meters,[22] and it should be noted that the distance between Manalangsang and the jeep where Hispano was felled was only 31 feet[23] or a little over nine meters.[24] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In People v. Sabalones,[26] it was alleged that the prosecution account had inconsistencies relating to the number of shots heard and the interval between the gunshots and the victims' positions when they were killed. The Court dismissed those allegations as "minor and inconsequential flaws" which strengthen, and rather than impaired, the credibility of said eyewitnesses. In the same breath, the Court held then that "such harmless errors are indicative of truth, not falsehood,"[27] and did not cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of the testimony of complainant. Also, in People v. Gonzales,[28] the Court held that testimonial discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of memory which tends to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Second: It has always been said that criminal cases are primarily about human nature.[13] In the instant case, appellant disappeared after his wounded wife was rushed to the hospital. This is indeed contrary to human nature. A husband is expected to lend comfort to his dying wife up to her last breath. In this case, however, appellant took flight. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, as in this case, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[14] | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| True, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the participation of the co-accused in the crime, or when the confession is corroborated by other pieces of evidence.[37] In such instances, the significance of the confession comes to the fore, but only in relation to the other circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the person incriminated. In the instant case, the merits of the fifth and the sixth circumstances mentioned by the appellate court depend, therefore, on the strength of the other circumstantial evidence against petitioner. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, allegations of impropriety committed during custodial investigation are relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession is the basis of conviction.[26] In the present case, the conviction of petitioner was not deduced solely from his admission, but from the confluence of circumstantial evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Once again we must stress that matters concerning the credibility of the witnesses are best addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court.[13] It is well-settled that appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's assessment in this regard, absent any indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts of substance or value or gravely abused its discretion.[14] As often held, the matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of accused's behavior, demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial.[15] | |||||
|
2002-01-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Treachery (alevosia) is committed when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[27] In this case, attendant circumstances including the sequence of events, as found by trial court and as shown by the records, rule out the presence of the first element of alevosia. True, appellant stabbed Milanes at the back while Ferdinand encircled his arm in a tight grip around the victim's neck. But recall, however, that Milanes was together with an armed policeman (SPO1 Cura), Rodney Tan, and other passengers.[28] There were also on-lookers. Note likewise that the incident happened at past 7 o'clock A.M.[29] during a traffic jam.[30] The presence of Cura (albeit in civilian attire) and his companions who came to Milanes' rescue shows that the victim was not completely helpless. [31] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the credibility of a witness is at issue, the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded great respect by the appellate courts, because of its direct opportunity to observe the witness on the stand and to determine whether he or she is telling the truth or not.[20] And where such assessment is affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ought not to interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of a witness.[21] | |||||