This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| For a dying declaration[24] to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule,[25] four (4) conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.[26] On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form part of the res gestae,[27] and thus, constitute another exception to the rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[28] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal.[15] In this case, the identity of the accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime has been adequately established by the prosecution, more particularly by the testimony of Dagangon. The Court cannot sustain the accused-appellant's argument that it was impossible for Dagangon to see the assailant considering that there was no evidence to show that the place where the crime occurred was lighted. As found by the CA, Dagangon was only three meters away from the accused-appellant and Jerome and had a good view of them. Moreover, there was no distraction that could have disrupted Dagangon's attention. He even immediately identified the accused-appellant and Jerome during police investigation, and there is no showing that Dagangon was informed by the police beforehand that the accused-appellant was one of the suspects.[16] Positive identification by a prosecution witness of the accused as one of the perpetrators of the crime is entitled to greater weight than alibi and denial.[17] Such positive identification gains further ground in the absence of any ill motive on the part of a witness to falsely testify against an accused.[18] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion, Erwin's liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally liable as co-principals by direct participation.[22] | |||||