Lawyerly

GR No. 189355

2013-01-23

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover, appellant's assertion that "AAA" had male companions in her boarding house and that anyone of them could have indulged in sexual intercourse with her is purely speculative and has no factual basis. "A rape victim's testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused."[17] Verily, it is unlikely and unnatural for a victim and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[18]

GR No. 158362

2011-04-04

PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO

BERSAMIN, J.

The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim as well as their familiarity with the accused who were their neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as Haide's assailants. In Marturillas v. People,[27] the Court observed that the familiarity of the witness with the assailant erased any doubt that the witness could have erred; and noted that a witness related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the faces of the person involved in the attack on the victim, because relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law.[28]

GR No. 189834

2011-03-30

PEOPLE v. JAY MANDY MAGLIAN Y REYES

VELASCO JR., J.

While witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived from their own perception, a report in open court of a dying person's declaration is recognized as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is "made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case."[13] It is considered as "evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation."[14]

GR No. 190341

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ROMY FALLONES Y LABANA

ABAD, J.

Further, the Court considers a res gestae Amalia's recital of what she heard Alice utter when she came and rescued her. Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.[13] For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[14]

GR No. 178272

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO

PERALTA, J.

Clearly, Geraldino positively identified the appellant as the author of the crime. He testified that with the aid of the light cast by the torch carried by the women near him, he was able to see the appellant stab Analyn twice while she was lying on her back. Thus, even if the crime was committed during the night, it was not totally dark, as a torch illuminated the place where Analyn was stabbed by the appellant. The Court has consistently held that the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight in proper situations is considered sufficient to allow the identification of persons.[14]

GR No. 192251

2011-02-16

PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Anent the negative paraffin tests on appellants, the RTC relied on Marturillas v. People,[9] where the Court reiterated its consistent ruling that a negative paraffin test conducted on an accused does not ipso facto prove said accused is innocent, for a negative paraffin test result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.

GR No. 164266

2008-07-23

NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR Y DE LEON v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. It then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether or not included in the assignment of errors.[36]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

Also, appellant posits that AAA, in filing the charges, was moved by no earnest desire to obtain justice because she has merely been pressured by her grandmother to fabricate a tale of rape as the latter often complained about his and BBB's frequent quarrels and often told them that they had better be separated than continue on living together.[37] Appellant in effect would have the Court reassess the credibility of AAA's testimony, which function however as we have held in not a few occasions is best discharged by the trial court. Suffice it to say that when the issue focuses on the credibility of witnesses, or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct and attitude on the stand. And although this rule is open to certain defined exceptions,[38] none obtains in this case. More importantly, other than the bare imputation by appellant of ill motives against AAA and the latter's grandmother, there is nothing more in the evidence which indicates that AAA and her grandmother were animated by improper motives in pinning down appellant. To be sure, it would be highly unlikely and unnatural for a victim of a crime and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[39]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

Also, appellant posits that AAA, in filing the charges, was moved by no earnest desire to obtain justice because she has merely been pressured by her grandmother to fabricate a tale of rape as the latter often complained about his and BBB's frequent quarrels and often told them that they had better be separated than continue on living together.[37] Appellant in effect would have the Court reassess the credibility of AAA's testimony, which function however as we have held in not a few occasions is best discharged by the trial court. Suffice it to say that when the issue focuses on the credibility of witnesses, or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct and attitude on the stand. And although this rule is open to certain defined exceptions,[38] none obtains in this case. More importantly, other than the bare imputation by appellant of ill motives against AAA and the latter's grandmother, there is nothing more in the evidence which indicates that AAA and her grandmother were animated by improper motives in pinning down appellant. To be sure, it would be highly unlikely and unnatural for a victim of a crime and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[39]

GR No. 177136

2008-06-30

PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN

TINGA, J,

Finally, in a last-ditch attempt to exonerate himself from liability, appellant asks why AAA, testifying on the May 1996 incident, belatedly claimed that she was threatened with a kitchen knife when in fact the same was not even mentioned in her affidavit.[44] This argument is puerile. Affidavits or sworn statements are usually incomplete since they are often prepared by administering officers who cast the same in their language and understanding of what the affiant has said. Most of the time, they are products of partial suggestions and sometimes of want of suggestions and searching inquiries without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the circumstances necessary for an accurate recollection.[45] Thus, AAA's belated claim that appellant poked a knife at her in all three instances of rape cannot be taken to hurt the credibility of her testimony. Be that as it may, such lapse in AAA's own narrative does not go into any of the elemental acts necessary to make a reasonable conclusion that appellant is guilty indeed of the charges.

GR NO. 176158

2007-03-27

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the killer of Eleuterio. There was no indication that they were impelled by ill motives in their narration of the incident and in identifying appellant. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, his/her positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[8]

GR NO. 174194

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the instant case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of Libao, who described with reasonable certainty the fact of the killings, as well as identified appellant as the assailant. There was no indication or proof that she was impelled by ill motives in her narration of the stabbing incidents and in identifying appellant. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, his/her positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[34]

	GR No. 189355 2013-01-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, appellant's assertion that "AAA" had male companions in her boarding house and that anyone of them could have indulged in sexual intercourse with her is purely speculative and has no factual basis. "A rape victim's testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused."[17] Verily, it is unlikely and unnatural for a victim and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[18]
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim as well as their familiarity with the accused who were their neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as Haide's assailants. In Marturillas v. People,[27] the Court observed that the familiarity of the witness with the assailant erased any doubt that the witness could have erred; and noted that a witness related to the victim had a natural tendency to remember the faces of the person involved in the attack on the victim, because relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law.[28]
	GR No. 189834 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. JAY MANDY MAGLIAN Y REYES VELASCO JR., J.
While witnesses in general can only testify to facts derived from their own perception, a report in open court of a dying person's declaration is recognized as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is "made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case."[13] It is considered as "evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation."[14]
	GR No. 190341 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ROMY FALLONES Y LABANA ABAD, J.
Further, the Court considers a res gestae Amalia's recital of what she heard Alice utter when she came and rescued her. Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.[13] For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[14]
	GR No. 178272 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO PERALTA, J.
Clearly, Geraldino positively identified the appellant as the author of the crime. He testified that with the aid of the light cast by the torch carried by the women near him, he was able to see the appellant stab Analyn twice while she was lying on her back. Thus, even if the crime was committed during the night, it was not totally dark, as a torch illuminated the place where Analyn was stabbed by the appellant. The Court has consistently held that the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight in proper situations is considered sufficient to allow the identification of persons.[14]
	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
Anent the negative paraffin tests on appellants, the RTC relied on Marturillas v. People,[9] where the Court reiterated its consistent ruling that a negative paraffin test conducted on an accused does not ipso facto prove said accused is innocent, for a negative paraffin test result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.
	GR No. 164266 2008-07-23	NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR Y DE LEON v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. It then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether or not included in the assignment of errors.[36]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
Also, appellant posits that AAA, in filing the charges, was moved by no earnest desire to obtain justice because she has merely been pressured by her grandmother to fabricate a tale of rape as the latter often complained about his and BBB's frequent quarrels and often told them that they had better be separated than continue on living together.[37] Appellant in effect would have the Court reassess the credibility of AAA's testimony, which function however as we have held in not a few occasions is best discharged by the trial court. Suffice it to say that when the issue focuses on the credibility of witnesses, or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct and attitude on the stand. And although this rule is open to certain defined exceptions,[38] none obtains in this case. More importantly, other than the bare imputation by appellant of ill motives against AAA and the latter's grandmother, there is nothing more in the evidence which indicates that AAA and her grandmother were animated by improper motives in pinning down appellant. To be sure, it would be highly unlikely and unnatural for a victim of a crime and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[39]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
Also, appellant posits that AAA, in filing the charges, was moved by no earnest desire to obtain justice because she has merely been pressured by her grandmother to fabricate a tale of rape as the latter often complained about his and BBB's frequent quarrels and often told them that they had better be separated than continue on living together.[37] Appellant in effect would have the Court reassess the credibility of AAA's testimony, which function however as we have held in not a few occasions is best discharged by the trial court. Suffice it to say that when the issue focuses on the credibility of witnesses, or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct and attitude on the stand. And although this rule is open to certain defined exceptions,[38] none obtains in this case. More importantly, other than the bare imputation by appellant of ill motives against AAA and the latter's grandmother, there is nothing more in the evidence which indicates that AAA and her grandmother were animated by improper motives in pinning down appellant. To be sure, it would be highly unlikely and unnatural for a victim of a crime and her relatives to point to someone else as the author of the crime other than the real culprit.[39]
	GR No. 177136 2008-06-30	PEOPLE v. ARTURO DOMINGO Y GATCHALIAN TINGA, J,
Finally, in a last-ditch attempt to exonerate himself from liability, appellant asks why AAA, testifying on the May 1996 incident, belatedly claimed that she was threatened with a kitchen knife when in fact the same was not even mentioned in her affidavit.[44] This argument is puerile. Affidavits or sworn statements are usually incomplete since they are often prepared by administering officers who cast the same in their language and understanding of what the affiant has said. Most of the time, they are products of partial suggestions and sometimes of want of suggestions and searching inquiries without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the circumstances necessary for an accurate recollection.[45] Thus, AAA's belated claim that appellant poked a knife at her in all three instances of rape cannot be taken to hurt the credibility of her testimony. Be that as it may, such lapse in AAA's own narrative does not go into any of the elemental acts necessary to make a reasonable conclusion that appellant is guilty indeed of the charges.
	GR NO. 176158 2007-03-27	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the killer of Eleuterio. There was no indication that they were impelled by ill motives in their narration of the incident and in identifying appellant. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, his/her positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[8]
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the instant case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of Libao, who described with reasonable certainty the fact of the killings, as well as identified appellant as the assailant. There was no indication or proof that she was impelled by ill motives in her narration of the stabbing incidents and in identifying appellant. Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, his/her positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[34]

CELESTINO MARTURILLAS v. PEOPLE