This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances under which they were made. This Court held in People v. Escosura that the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and she was given an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies.[17] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Like an alibi, self-defense is inherently weak for it is easy to fabricate.[47] Thus, this Court had consistently ruled that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense.[48] As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[49] In the instant case, appellant failed to discharge such burden with clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, his plea of lawful self-defense must fall. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In resolving criminal cases where the accused invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, this Court consistently held that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense.[52] As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[53] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A Sinumpaang Salaysay or a sworn statement is merely a short narrative subscribed to by the complainant in question and answer form. Thus, it is only to be expected that it is not as exhaustive as one's testimony in open court. The contradictions, if any, may be explained by the fact that an affidavit can not possibly disclose the details in their entirety, and may inaccurately describe, without deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. Being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from the want of suggestions and inquiries. It has thus been held that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford her a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her.[69] As for the other alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they refer to minor and collateral matters, not to an essential element of the crime, [70] and do not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim. Moreover, minor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related factors. [71] In fact, they bolster rather than weaken their credibility as they erase any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed.[72] What is important is that both Felipe and Benjamin were consistent in positively identifying appellant as the person who shot their father. | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| By invoking self-defense, appellant must prove: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[13] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[14] | |||||
|
2003-10-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that like alibi, self-defense is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate.[49] In a case where self-defense is invoked by the accused, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the following essential requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. There can be no complete or incomplete self-defense unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[50] The accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution. This is so because in pleading self-defense, the accused thereby admits to the killing and can no longer be exonerated of the crime charged if he fails to prove the confluence of the essential requisites of self-defense.[51] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| If any nagging doubts as to appellants' guilt still linger, their leaving hastily the scene of the crime as the victim was shouting "Rape!"[34] should dissipate them. Thus, by Nestor Igot's account, after a group of cyclists and joggers had gathered around the victim, appellants, on board the vehicle, immediately headed towards the direction of Cebu City.[35] Innocent persons would normally seize the first available opportunity to defend themselves and assert their innocence.[36] Appellants' flight certainly strongly indicates their guilt.[37] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Persons who act in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and describe fully and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts.[18] But appellant did not. | |||||
|
2003-08-21 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We now come to the civil liabilities of Almedilla. The civil indemnity due the heirs of the victim should be P50,000.00 in accord with recent jurisprudence.[17] There should also be an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for the anguish Gemma suffered due to the death of Ruel.[18] It is the rule that claims of actual damages must be supported by evidence.[19] In this case, although Gemma claimed P100,000.00 as actual damages, she was able to present receipts showing actual expenses the total of which is only P80,600.00.[20] Similarly, the award of loss of earning capacity should be deleted for lack of proof. When asked to present evidence of her claim that Ruel earned P22,000.00 a month and P10,000.00 for every plan that he used to make as a sideline, Gemma replied that she did not bring the proofs with her to court.[21] In People vs. Castillano,[22] we held that "compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and as such requires due proof of the damage suffered; there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income." Nonetheless, we award P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the lack of proof of the average income of the victim.[23] | |||||