This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Victim Alastair positively identified Petrus as the driver of the white Toyota Corolla taxicab with Plate No. PVD 115 which he boarded before he lost consciousness on the afternoon of January 20, 2004. He claimed that while he was conversing with his business associate Kelly Wei over his phone inside the taxicab, Petrus would turn his face towards him, from time to time, and would talk as if he was being spoken to. Alastair claimed that he had a good look and an ample opportunity to remember the facial features of the driver as to be able to recognize and identify him in court. It is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their accosters and the manner in which the craven acts are committed.[19] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| While it is true that the most natural reaction for victims of crimes is to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which the craven acts are committed,[39] in this case, AAA cannot be faulted for failing to recognize appellant as her rapist though the latter was their neighbor. It must be recalled, as narrated by AAA and BBB, they were all still lying face down when appellant suddenly entered the store right after his co-accused Grondiano exited through the balcony taking the loot with him. BBB recounted that her mother was still lying face down when appellant removed her mother's short pants and panty, placed a pillow below her abdomen and then proceeded to rape her. It was BBB who had the opportunity to look at this second person who entered their house because she looked back at the door thinking that Grondiano (the one who first entered the store) already left, but then appellant immediately came in after Grondiano. Although AAA was able to shout at that time, she could not move because she was afraid that her three children, who were already crying, will be harmed.[40] | |||||
|
2005-08-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[15] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[16] | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[15] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution's case as they tend to erase suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed, thereby negating any misgivings that the same were perjured.[16] | |||||
|
2004-04-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[116] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[117] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[118] | |||||
|
2003-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Proof of conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence as the felonious covenant itself may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during, and after the commission of the crime disclosing a common understanding between them relative to its commission.[44] | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance," signifies a legislative intent to treat as a single offense the illegal possession of firearms and the commission of murder or homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm.[17] Thus where an accused used an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder, he may no longer be charged with what used to be the two (2) separate offenses of homicide or murder under The Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under PD 1866; in other words, where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance.[18] The use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be considered however as a special aggravating circumstance in Crim. Case No. 23-498 and Crim. Case No. 23-494. For one, it was not alleged as an aggravating circumstance in the Informations for murder and frustrated murder which is | |||||