Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PABLO DELA CRUZ v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
Although Hermogenes went to Barangay Chairman Aloria of Bulihan after the killings, he did so to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims' relatives, not to admit his participation in the killing of the victims.[40] Even then, Hermogenes denied any involvement in the killings when the police went to take him from Chairman Aloria's house.[41] As such, Hermogenes did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in the killings or in order to save the authorities the trouble and expense for his arrest.[42]
	GR No. 185849 2010-04-07	PEOPLE v. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, the victim or spectator to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. [22] In the instant case, all the elements of res gestae are sufficiently established insofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance is concerned: (1) the principal act (res gestae) - the robbery and stabbing of the victim - is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, that is, within minutes after the victim was stabbed and his cellular phone was snatched; and (3) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances - his cellular phone was stolen during the startling occurrence. The testimony being an exception to the hearsay rule, the trial court did not err in admitting the same.
	GR No. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove.[63] Alibi must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.[64] For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[65]
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Denial is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving. Corollarily, alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove.[46] Denial and alibi must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence otherwise they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[47] For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[48]
	GR NO. 142408 2005-09-30	SPS. RICARDO ALMENDRALA AND ROSARIO DOROJA v. SPS. WING ON NGO AND LILY T. NGO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
And as regards the alleged perjured testimonies of Wing On Ngo and Jaime Patalud, it is perfectly within the discretion of the CA to accept portions of the testimony of a witness as it may deem credible and reject those which it believes to be false. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict legal maxim in our jurisprudence. It is neither a categorical test of credibility nor a positive rule of universal application.[41] It has its own limitations, for when the mistaken statement is consistent with good faith and is not conclusively indicative of a deliberate perversion, the believable portion of the testimony should be admitted. Although a person may err in memory or in observation in one or more respects, he may have told the truth as to other respects. Stated elsewise, the rule deals only with the weight of evidence and should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes.[42] There is no concrete evidence that Wing On Ngo or Jaime Patalud intended to pervert the truth or prevaricated when they testified on the intention of the Ngo spouses to make use of the subject property.