This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to say that the relative position of the witness from the victim and the assailant refers to a minor detail that does not detract from his credibility. What is important is that Valenciano witnessed the unfolding of the crime and was able to positively identify appellant as the culprit.[34] In addition and as correctly pointed out by the OSG, Valenciano readily identified appellant because the latter used to reside in the same barangay of which he was barangay captain. In fact, he testified as follows: PROS. GATIA : Mr. Valenciano, do you know the accused in this case by the name of Joemarie Jalbonian? WITNESS : Yes, sir. Q : Do you know this accused by face and by x x x name before January 26, 1991? A : Yes, sir. Q : Why [do] you know him? A : Because I was then a Barangay Captain [of Brgy. Balicotoc.] I [am familiar with almost all] the residents there, sir. Q : So, in 1991 of January you were then Barangay Captain of Barangay Balicotoc? A : Yes, sir. Q : If this Joemarie Jalbonian alias "Budo" is here inside the courtroom, can you point to him? A : Yes, sir. Q : Please point to him? INTERPRETER : The witness pointed to the person who stood up[,] and when asked[,] identified himself as Joemarie Jalbonian y Mellendez.[35] | |||||
|
2003-03-20 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We have always ruled that two conditions must concur to constitute treachery, namely: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption by the culprit of the means of execution.[24] According to the defense, based on the evidence presented, the victim had an opportunity to defend himself because, prior to the attack, he was aware of the presence of the appellant with whom he had a previous misunderstanding. On the other hand, it is the Solicitor General's position that the assault was treacherous as the victim had no inkling that the appellant would attack him from behind. According to the Solicitor General, the presence of the appellant by the roadside near a lighted lamppost was not enough to warn the victim of any danger because he did not know that the appellant was armed. In fact, they were together drinking just an hour before the assault. | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| ATTY. LASCIERAS: QUESTION: In the evening of January 29, 1994 more or less at about 8:00 o'clock, do you remember where were you? ANSWER: I was in the house of my grandmother Leonida Aguila at Barangay Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon, sir. Q: While you were in the house of your grandmother at Barangay Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, do you remember if your grandmother told you anything? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was told to you by your grandmother Leonida Aguila? A: I was requested by my grandmother to fetch Alexander Carandang, sir. Q: Did your grandmother tell you where to fetch Alexander Carandang? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where? A: At the duck farm, sir. Q: Where is that duck farm being referred to by your grandmother? A: The duck farm located at Barangay Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon, sir. COURT: Who owned that duck farm? WITNESS: It was Alexander Carandang, Your Honor. ATTY. LASCIERAS: Q: When your grandmother requested you to fetch Alexander Carandang at his duck farm, what did you do?[21] Q: When you said you went to the duck farm, were you able to reach said duck farm? A: No, sir. Q: Why? A: On my way to the duck farm I met Ireneo Godoy, Aquilino Godoy, Alexander Carandang and three other persons whom I did not know, sir. COURT: How far was the duck farm of Alexander Carandang from the house of your grandmother? WITNESS: Half kilometer, your Honor. COURT: How far were you from the duck farm of Alexander Carandang when you met the group of Godoy, Carandang and others? WITNESS: Around ten meters away from the duck farm, Your Honor. COURT: Was there a road going to the duck farm? WITNESS: A pathway, Your Honor. ATTY. LASCIERAS: Q: When you met the group of Ireneo Godoy together with Alexander Carandang, what happened? WITNESS: I saw Aquilino Godoy and another person holding both hands of Alexander Carandang, sir. Q: When you saw that Alexander Carandang was being held by Aquilino Godoy and the other one whom you do not know, where was Ireneo Godoy? A: He was in front of Alexander Carandang, sir. Q: What was Ireneo Godoy doing in front of Alexander Carandang? A: I saw him drew a bladed weapon and stabbed Alexander Carandang, sir. Q: When you said that Alexander Carandang was stabbed by Ireneo Godoy, what did you do? A: I shouted "Rene, huwag," but he continued stabbing Alexander Carandang, sir. Q: Was Alexander Carandang hit by the stab of Ireneo Godoy? ATTY. MARTINEZ: Leading, Your Honor. COURT: May answer. WITNESS: Yes, sir. ATTY. LASCIERAS: Q: Can you tell us which part of the body of Alexander Carandang was hit by the stab of Ireneo Godoy? A: In the chest, sir. Q: And after seeing this incident, what else did you do? A: I was about to approach them but they turned their attention at me so I ran back to the house of my grandmother, sir. ATTY. LASCIERAS: We request, your Honor, that the word in the vernacular, "Pinagbalingan" be placed on record. A: I was about to approach them but I was the one whom they "pinagbalingan" their attention so I ran back to the house of my grandmother, sir. COURT: When you used the word "pinagbalingan" what do you mean by that? WITNESS: "Susugurin po nila ako," Your Honor.[22] Accused-appellant assails the credibility of the witnesses who are all related to the victim. However, mere relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not impair their credibility as to render their testimonies unworthy of credence where no improper motive can be ascribed to them for so testifying.[23] Indeed, the witness' relationship to the victim would even make his testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating a crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[24] | |||||
|
2001-11-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is no treachery in this case. Treachery is considered present when: (1) there is employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the culprit.[53] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[54] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[55] These are absent in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With regard to alevosia, 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 the defense which the offended party might make.[34] Treachery is considered present when: (1) there is employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the culprit.[35] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[36] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[37] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| When the issue involved is the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it is well-settled that findings of trial courts deserve the highest degree of respect.[27] Their assessment may be disregarded only if they have committed substantial errors or overlooked determinative facts that would have otherwise dictated a different conclusion or verdict.[28] We find no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine. | |||||