Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JESUS JAVIER

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155023 2004-05-28	PEOPLE v. CORNELIO CAJUMOCAN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The positive identification of the appellant at the scene of the crime by Leo Mirabueno should be given due weight and credence. Relationship by consanguinity between the witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the former. In certain cases relationship may even strengthen credibility for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual perpetrator. We held in People v. Realin[22] that the earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime. As further elaborated in People v. Javier,[23] there is absolutely nothing in this jurisdiction which disqualifies a person from testifying in a criminal case in which a relative is involved, if the former was really at the scene of the crime and witnessed the execution of the criminal act.
	GR No. 149784 2003-07-14	PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, appellant failed to show that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. Self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by competent evidence but is seriously doubtful.[11] Like alibi, self-defense is inherently a weak defense, which is so easy to concoct[12] but very difficult to verify. Appellant's invocation of self-defense therefore deserves scant consideration.
	GR No. 149784 2003-07-14	PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Not only were witnesses' testimonies convincing and unequivocal, the same were also backed up by the physical evidence, which is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth.[17] It is well-settled rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the assailant are considered important indicators which belie a plea of self-defense.[18]
	GR No. 123161 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. LIBERATO 'DUKDUK' SOLAMILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
(3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequence of his act.[42] When it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[43] Here, we cannot discern from the records the presence of the foregoing essential element.