This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Benny's assertion that Wilfredo is not a credible witness since he surfaced three years after the incident to testify for the prosecution also fails to impress. It is worthy to mention that the proceedings in this case was suspended for two years because Benny and Adriano left Pinabacdao, Samar and the warrant for their arrest could not be served on them. Also, deference or reluctance in reporting a crime does not destroy the truth of the charge nor is it an indication of deceit. Delay in reporting a crime or an unusual incident in a rural area is well-known.[42] It is common for a witness to prefer momentary silence for fear of reprisal from the accused.[43] The fact remains that Wilfredo fulfilled his duty as a good member of society by aiding the family of Jesus when they were seeking justice. In the absence of other circumstances that would show that the charge was a mere concoction and that Wilfredo was impelled by some evil motives, delay in testifying is insufficient to discredit his testimony. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Without a doubt, the intention of petitioner was to kill the victim. This intention was very clear when he treacherously attacked the victim when the latter was eating at the carinderia. The number of times (four) petitioner stabbed the victim in the chest area supports this conclusion. The intent to kill is shown by the weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed.[61] | |||||