This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[20] Treachery is not presumed but must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself.[21] | |||||
|
2005-10-12 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| Also strange is the dismissal by the respondent judge of Criminal Case No. 2073, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Double Homicide, based on the affidavit of desistance executed by Capistrano Minoza, who was not a party or witness in the case. Affidavits of desistance are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the Court,[8] for they can be easily secured for financial considerations.[9] More so if they come from one who is neither an offended party nor a witness, such as in the subject criminal case. Significantly, there is no showing that the prosecution or the accused filed a motion to dismiss the case. In one case,[10] the Court considered as grave misconduct the act of a judge in dismissing a criminal case on the ground of the supposed desistance of the private complainant even without any motion to dismiss on the part of the prosecution. | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have held that affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to the testimony given in open court, and affidavits of recantation have been invariably regarded as exceedingly unreliable, since they can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses,[35] for monetary consideration or through intimidation[36] and are most likely to be repudiated afterwards.[37] | |||||
|
2000-06-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Hence, we affirm Macario Castillo's conviction of the charge of kidnapping for ransom. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[52] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long held that "the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.[14] Prosecution witness Vasquez testified that he knew both appellant and his companion since they frequented the place of the stabbing incident as "standby" ("istambay").[15] Identification is facilitated by the fact that the person has gained familiarity with another.[16] In this case, the minor consistencies pointed out by appellant do not refer to the crux of the matter, which is his participation in the commission of the crime. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his credibility.[17] Further, contradictions between the contents of an affiant's affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility because it has long been within judicial notice that affidavits, which are usually taken ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate.[18] | |||||
|
2000-01-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, prosecution witness Allan Cablayan identified accused-appellant as the aggressor, together with two other persons. Accused-appellant attempted to discredit the testimony of prosecution witness Allan Cablayan by alleging that he had been evicted from the house he was renting and had a grudge against accused-appellant for having initiated ejectment proceedings on behalf of the owner of the house. However, Allan Cablayan, in his testimony, denied bearing any grudge against accused-appellant.[21] His testimony was given credence by the trial court, which was in a better position to determine the issue of credibility of witnesses, having heard the witness and observed his deportment and manner of testifying. We find no cogent reason to rule otherwise, absent certain facts of substance and value which may have been overlooked that might affect the result of the case.[22] | |||||