This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The fact that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim will not necessarily taint their testimonies. The weight of testimony of witnesses is neither impaired nor in any way affected by their relationship to the victim when there is no showing of improper motive on their part.[19] Relationship per se of a witness with the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[20] These prosecution witnesses are the most aggrieved parties, being the victim's widow and sister. Thus, their motive of putting the killers behind bars cannot be considered improper.[21] It would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in avenging the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprit lest the guilty go unpunished.[22] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.[10] Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their family;[11] while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives[12] or townmates.[13] And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.[14] | |||||
|
2008-09-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, there was no indication that the wife and the daughter of the deceased victim were improperly motivated when they testified against the appellant. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[29] Leonisa was the wife of the deceased victim while Mailene was his daughter; thus, it would be unnatural for them, being relatives and interested in vindicating the crime, to implicate someone other than the real culprit, lest the guilty go unpunished. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence, and blame one who is innocent of the crime.[30] In this case, Leonisa and Mailene's act of testifying against the appellant was motivated only by no other motive than their strong desire to seek justice for what had happened to the deceased victim. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| She cannot be faulted for doing what she did. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting a crime to the authorities.[43] Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness' credibility.[44] The fact that Mrs. Bona did not right away submit a written statement to the police was natural and within the bounds of expected human behavior. Her action revealed a spontaneous and natural reaction of a person who had yet to fully comprehend a shocking and traumatic event. Besides, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable. People react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[45] In her case, Mrs. Bona said she was shocked and lost her composure because that was the first time she saw someone being killed in front of her.[46] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| We deem it proper to further impose exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 which is recoverable in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[58] | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details do not impair their credibility.[9] Minor inconsistencies even tend to strengthen the credibility of a witness because they discount the possibility that the testimony was rehearsed.[10] As regards the actuations of the witnesses at the time of the incident, it is settled that there is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful occurrence.[11] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, this Court finds Rolando's testimony plausible. His positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime charged was categorical and consistent; hence, we cannot cast any doubt on his credibility as prosecution witness. Also, there was no indication that he was improperly motivated when he testified against the appellant. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[19] It bears stressing that Rolando was the brother of the victim and it would be unnatural for him, being a relative and interested in vindicating the crime, to implicate someone other than the real culprit lest the guilty go unpunished. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence, and blame one who is innocent of the crime.[20] In this case, Rolando's act of testifying against the appellant was motivated only by no other than his strong desire to seek justice for what had happened to his brother. | |||||