Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TORADIO SILVANO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 208170 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. PETRUS YAU MENDOZA, J.
Alastair's positive identification of Susana is not in any bit prejudiced by his failure to mention her name in his sworn statement, dated February 12, 2004. It is well-settled that affidavits, being ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses.[29] Oftentimes, the allegations contained in affidavits involved mere passive mention of details anchored entirely on the investigator's questions. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit.[30] Testimonies given during the trial are more exact and elaborate. Besides, sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford the affiant a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[31]
	GR No. 170462 2014-02-05	RODOLFO GUEVARRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the commission of the acts for which they were charged, albeit under circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated them. With this admission, the burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to show that the killing and frustrated killing of David and Erwin, respectively, were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons resorting to self-defense.[31]
	GR No. 181052 2012-11-14	RODOLFO BELBIS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The essential requisites of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[18] Verily, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.[19]
	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
In order for self-defense to be successfully invoked, the following essential elements must be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[11]
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
The essential elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[33] The person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements.[34] More importantly, "to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack."[35]
	GR No. 122103 2003-11-04	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO PABILLO TINGA, J.
Dador narrated that when Ipil reached the duo, Wilfredo suddenly got hold of Ipil's arm, pushed him towards the front, and hacked him on the head. This was followed by Alfredo's hacking blow on Ipil's left arm when the latter was about to fall. When Ipil tried to run, he was again hacked at the back by Wilfredo. This straightforward account of how Ipil was killed very closely corresponded with the descriptions of Ipil's wounds as detailed in the Post-Mortem Examination Report[34] as follows: hacking wound located on the left elbow, hacking wound on the head, right frontal region, and wound at the scapular region. This physical evidence speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[35] Consistent with the testimony of the principal prosecution witness, it establishes beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of accused-appellant.
	GR No. 105830 2002-01-15	ELADIO C. TANGAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit and trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each other when the shot was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the revolver.[4] Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[5] For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[6]
	GR No. 123819 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[68] For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[69]
	GR No. 135145 2001-07-19	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND MAXION Y GASPAR PARDO, J.
We affirm the award of P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of Emmanuel Gargaceran as this is in accord with current jurisprudence.[19] As for moral damages, the award of P50,000.00 is proper. The Civil Code provides that "moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission."[20] Luzviminda Gargaceran, the victim's wife, testified that on May 24, 1993, she saw her husband in the morgue, lying on bed with his left eye opened and his face full of blood. She also testified that the death of her husband left her with three children to support, thus, she did not know what to do.[21] She lost him due to a senseless crime. However, we cannot sustain the award of P25,310.00 as actual damages. The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if proper receipts support them.[22]