This case has been cited 20 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It matters not that no other eyewitness corroborated AAA's testimony of the actual incidents. The testimony of the complainant as a lone witness to the actual perpetration of the act, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the accused because evidence is weighed and not counted.[26] If, in criminal cases of rape[27] or homicide,[28] the positive, categorical and credible testimony of a lone witness is deemed enough to support a conviction, then, in the case at bar, involving a case of violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, this Court shall treat in the same manner the testimony of a single but credible witness for the prosecution. Especially if the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner, corroborative testimony is not needed to support a conviction.[29] | |||||
|
2014-07-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on "clear and convincing evidence."[126] Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself.[127] Its existence "cannot be presumed."[128] As with the finding of guilt of the accused, "[a]ny doubt as to [its] existence . . . [should] be resolved in favor of the accused."[129] | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The argument of the appellant that the prosecution's account of the buy-bust operation is unworthy of belief since no corroborative testimony was presented, fails to impress. There is no law requiring that in drug cases the testimony of a single witness has to be corroborated to be believed. Corroborative evidence is vital only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness twisted the truth, or that his or her observation was inaccurate. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted. Thus, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.[18] Moreover, it is on record that the appellant no longer required the presentation of corroborative testimony. During the trial, the prosecution was ready to present another witness in the person of PO1 Santos. However, the parties agreed to dispense with his testimony since it would only be corroborative in nature.[19] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We likewise agree with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner's failure to report for work was not justified.[19] He said he had gone hiding in Batangas to evade arrest and ward off the long arm of the law. We have held that through flight, one derogates the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[20] We cannot countenance the petitioner's excuse and make him benefit from a grossly unlawful act which he himself created. To do so would be to place an imprimatur on his attempt to derail the normal course of the administration of justice. | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to Bayacsan, he candidly admitted in court that he considered appellant his friend and he wanted to protect him and hence, he only disclosed appellant's admission to him when the police started questioning him. There is no rule that the suspect in a crime should immediately be named by a witness.[86] Different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of human behavior when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.[87] The Court understands the natural reluctance or aversion of some people to get involved in a criminal case.[88] More so where, as in these cases, a townmate of Bayanes and Bayacsan is involved. We have taken notice that when their townmates are involved in a criminal case, most people turn reticent.[89] Hence, the failure of Bayanes and Bayacsan to immediately volunteer information to the police investigators will not lessen the probative value of their respective testimonies. The delay, having been satisfactorily explained, has no effect on their credibility.[90] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[20] It must be borne in mind that qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty imposed must be based on positive or conclusive proof, not mere suppositions or speculations,[21] and must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself.[22] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The information alleged that treachery attended the killing. Under the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[80] Thus, for treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or for retaliation and the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[81] | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the Information filed against appellant clearly shows that dwelling was not alleged as an aggravating circumstance. Even assuming that this circumstance was subsequently proven during trial, the lower court was precluded from appreciating it because of the new requirement under the rules. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Article 249 of the RPC, which defines and penalizes the crime of homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum; to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.[38] | |||||
|
2002-12-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| necessarily taint his testimony. We have held that the blood relationship between a witness and the victim does not, by itself, impair the former's credibility. On the contrary, relationship may strengthen credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the real culprit.[30] Moreover, the appellant was not able to discharge the burden of proving that the murder he perpetrated was justified by self-defense. First, according to the appellant, the victim fell to the ground when he evaded the victim's assault. The appellant then grabbed the victim's | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| might make."[28] The essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack on the victim, leaving him unable and unprepared to defend himself or to repel the attack.[29] To appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or for retaliation and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[30] In the case at bar, we find that the trial court properly appreciated the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2002-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| act unfolded and resulted in the death of the victim.[74] Treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proven positively.[75] Any doubt as to its existence must be resolved in favor of appellant.[76] Thus, appellant can be convicted of homicide only,[77] for which the penalty under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| complainant were lovers. As in most rape cases, complainant's testimony in this case is uncorroborated. It is true that the lone testimony of the rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction;[11] and that evidence is weighed, not counted.[12] In each | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the qualifying circumstance of treachery be proven as fully as the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty of the culprit.[18] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[19] We are thus constrained to review the evidence concerning treachery. A thorough examination of the records of this case reveals that it is not clear whether the victim was beside or in front of the appellant. The testimonies of Perolino and Aviles are conflicting as to the exact position of the victim relative to that of appellant at the | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| they were able to identify accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. We do not doubt the identification of accused-appellant considering that the place was not so dark,[11] and Bernardo Palacio was able to focus the beam of his flashlight on the face of accused-appellant.[12] Moreover, his distance from accused-appellant was less than a meter.[13] Bernardo Palacio's testimony is further bolstered by Dr. Antonio Lopez's testimony to the effect that the victim sustained one stab wound at the back. A detailed testimony acquires greater weight and credibility when confirmed by autopsy findings.[14] We are likewise not persuaded by accused-appellant's claim that Bernardo Palacio and Joselito Esmeña did not know his real name at the time of the alleged crime. The records reveal that although it was the police who supplied the name of accused-appellant; it was done after | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Immediately after the shooting, Jimmy never knew if Richard was hit.[17] He only confirmed that Richard was dead when the cadaver was brought back after the autopsy. Also, the evidence shows that the fatal wound sustained by Richard was in front, particularly on the chest.[18] If at all, this tends to show that Richard was forewarned or aware at that time that accused-appellant wanted to kill him.[19] Treachery cannot be appreciated absent any particulars as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act that resulted in the death of the victim unfolded. It is not sufficient that the means employed by the malefactor brought the desired result. The prosecution must prove that the appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such means, method or manner of attack as would deprive the victim of an opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.[20] One cannot substitute mere suppositions for a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence. Since the prosecution witness failed to see how the attack had been initiated on the victim, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be applied.[21] Without the qualifying circumstance of treachery having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the killing can only be considered as homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] A witness' delay in reporting what he knew about a crime does not render his testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.[15] Accused-appellant likewise professes lack of motive to kill the victim. Again, there is nothing in this case which will warrant a disregard of the factual findings of the trial court on this score. After appreciating the testimonies of the victim's family, the trial court was | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| witness' positive testimony, there is no doubt that the latter is entitled to credence.[6] Regardless, accused-appellant's contention that the gunshots came from the back of the abaca plantation was based on Virgilio's testimony and not on Arturo's. It is, therefore, misleading for accused-appellant to conclude that Arturo could not have positively identified him | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| in law.[10] When the trial court observed that Arturo testified "clearly and positively"[11] in identifying accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the shooting and killing of the victims, it goes without saying that Arturo's identification of him was also | |||||
|
2002-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| trying to avoid the service of the arrest warrant. In other words, he fled. In criminal law, flight means the act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.[23] Flight, in jurisprudence, has always been a strong | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| witnesses of violence, their most natural reaction was to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which it was committed.[24] Most often the faces and the body movements of the assailants create lasting impressions that cannot be easily erased from memory.[25] Second, the witnesses' recollections of the specific details of the crime[26] -- the fact that the victim was stabbed on the chest, the use of a knife in stabbing him, and the position of the assailant -- were corroborated by the medicolegal's | |||||