This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-06-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the intent to kill is very evident and was established beyond reasonable doubt through the unwavering testimony of Crisaldo on the manner of execution of the attack as well as the number of wounds he sustained. Crisaldo was stabbed from behind by petitioner. When Crisaldo turned around, petitioner continued his assault, hitting Crisaldo on the left arm as the latter tried to defend himself. The treacherous manner in which petitioner perpetrated the crime is shown not only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting victim but also by the deliberate manner in which the assault was perpetrated.[28] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the following facts and circumstances attest to these: 1) the notice of application for free patent containing the affidavit of posting signed by plaintiff was signed on the same day as the alleged affidavit of quitclaim; [ 2) the free] patent covered the whole area of 6.4730 hectares which was not reduced in any manner whatsoever; 3) the application of plaintiff was made as early as November 10, 1958 whereas that of the defendant was made only on November 25, 1976; 3) when plaintiff finally received his title to the area applied for under OCT [No. G-]298 of the Registry of Deed of Puerto Princesa [City] on September 5, 1977, it still retained the whole area of 6.4730 hectares. The defendant received his title barely 5 months after he filed his application while plaintiff received his until after 19 years of waiting; 6) the parties were of blood relation and it is conceded that defendant was better educated than the plaintiff; 7) while defendant asserts that Francisco Cervantes who is an older brother was present when the affidavit of quitclaim was executed allegedly before Gerardo Jacinto of the Bureau of Lands, he was not required or even requested to sign the same which ordinarily would have been done in transactions of this nature considering his seniority as an elder of the family; 8) the defense witness Nestor Zumarraga although related to both parties was much closer to defendant as their wives are sisters.[16] Generally, the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and the probative value of their testimony are accorded respect. The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence since it had the unique opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, and discern whether they were telling the truth. Thus, contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, the inconsistencies that petitioner made in relation to his testimony with regard to the person who handed him the affidavit of quitclaim, and the date of his visit to the Bureau of Lands, are minor ones that do not detract from the veracity of the testimony and even bolster his credibility because it removes any suspicion that his testimony was contrived or rehearsed.[17] In this regard, as it does not appear that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some significant fact and circumstance which if properly appreciated can alter the outcome of the case, the Court sustains the trial court's findings. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| For one, the trial court failed to note the existence of conspiracy among appellants in raping Emma. They dragged her to an uninhabited house and thereafter perpetrated their criminal acts one after the other. The evidence sufficiently demonstrated that, while each of the appellants was raping Emma, the other two appellants assisted him by cupping her mouth and holding her legs. Appellants also repeatedly threatened her after the rape incidents. Certainly, the acts of appellants before, during and after the commission of the crimes, taken together, were enough to show that they had a commonality of criminal design.[43] From the circumstances narrated, it was evident that there was a community of purpose on the part of appellants. Thus, the act of one was the act of all.[44] Consequently, appellants should be meted the appropriate penalty for each count of rape and therefore penalized for three counts of rape each. | |||||
|
2003-09-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A. He was holding a short firearm.[28] The perceived contradictions in the testimonies of Quimod and Tundag referred only to minor matters. There was no inconsistency as far as the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailants were concerned.[29] Minor discrepancies do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on the witnesses' credibility. [30] We have previously held, in fact, that minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the credibility of witnesses for they remove any suspicion of a contrived or rehearsed testimony.[31] | |||||
|
2003-09-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design.[38] Gleaned from the records is the following chain of events which proved that there was a community of design among the appellants: (1) appellants positioned themselves strategically before ambushing Tumayao; (2) Alfredo fired at Tumayao although there was no certainty that he hit the victim; (3) Ruben shot and hit the victim with his shotgun; (4) appellants fired their guns successively at Tumayao; (5) appellants, still holding their firearms, surrounded Tumayao after he slumped to the ground; (6) Sotero was holding a pistol and he ordered Alfredo to deliver the coup de grace to the victim; (7) Alfredo obeyed Sotero's order by shooting Tumayao one last time; (8) Alfredo and Ruben escaped from the scene of the crime; (9) Sotero, Sergio and Trinidad hid inside the latter's house away from the crime scene until they were ordered by the police to come out and surrender. | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Q- How about the fellow who was talking with the security guard? A- Also white T-shirt and maong pants."[29] The alleged inconsistencies as to the distance between the assailant and Gelvero, and appellant's claim that Flores could not have possibly known the exact time when he lost consciousness are too irrelevant for an extended discussion. Suffice it to state that the perceived contradictions in the testimony of Flores merely refer to minor matters that do not touch on the commission of the crime itself and do not affect the substance of his declaration, the veracity or the weight of his testimony. Witnesses cannot be expected to give a flawless testimony all the time. Although there may be inconsistencies in minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant.[30] Minor discrepancies do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on the witnesses' credibility.[31] We have previously held in fact that minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that the testimony was contrived or rehearsed.[32] | |||||