This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Resayo points out that his accession to the police's invitation was an indication of his innocence. He was found by the investigators ferrying passengers in Sta. Ana, Metro Manila and willingly went with them upon their request. He insists that this gesture is proof of his non-complicity in the crime charged. This argument is without merit. Such behavior does not sufficiently rebut the eyewitness' testimony nor is it conclusive proof of his innocence. There is nothing extraordinary with this conduct of acceding to the police's invitation to go to the headquarters for questioning.[25] | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After considering carefully the evidence on record, we find appellant's arguments unavailing. First, nowhere in the record is there a showing that the illumination at the situs criminis was so poor at the time of the incident sufficient to raise doubt on the positive identification by the eyewitness of the appellant as the assailant. Second, appellant himself admitted that Dadis and he lived as neighbors and they knew each other since childhood.[27] Appellant's physical features, build, and movements were familiar to the witness, Dadis. Familiarity with the physical features, particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person.[28] Third, on cross-examination, appellant admitted that there was no bad blood between Dadis and him. Thus, he did not know any reason or motive why Dadis should testify falsely against him.[29] As held in previous cases, where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness appears to be unbiased against the man on the dock, his statements as to the identity of the assailant deserve full faith and credence.[30] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the fact that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses differ on some minor details does not in any way affect their credibility. For persons who witness an event may perceive it from different points of reference. For this reason, they may have different accounts of how the incident took place. Indeed, we cannot expect the testimonies of witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all respects because different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. What is important is that their testimonies reinforce each other on the essential facts and that their versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.[16] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same were present, i.e., (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was in no position to defend himself and (2) the offenders consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by them.[30] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The accused-appellants harped on the fact that Herminio Mondragon did not report or tell anyone what he saw and waited for a long period of time before revealing that he saw the killing of Uldarico de Castro. "We do not find anything wrong with the witnesses' failure to talk to the police immediately after the incident. It is not uncommon for witnesses to delay or vacillate in disclosing the identity of the offender after the startling occurrence for fear of reprisals. The natural reluctance of witnesses to get involved in a criminal case and to provide information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice. Absent any showing that these witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit."[13] | |||||