This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant further argues that the prosecution did not present Henry Hualde because his testimony would be adverse to the case. We are not persuaded. It is the prosecution that determines who among its witnesses are to testify in court, and it is neither for the accused nor the court to override that prerogative. Corollarily, the failure of the prosecution to present a particular witness does not give rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, where that evidence is at the disposal of both parties or where the only object of presenting the witness would be to provide corroborative or cumulative evidence.[17] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, Enrique Ganan was in the comforts of his home, eating fishballs while cuddling his youngest daughter and was engaged in conversation with some visitors when he was shot in the head from behind by the gunman. As in the recent case of People v. Padilla,[72], treachery is evident when the accused-appellant suddenly positioned himself at the back of the unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him and, without any warning, promptly delivered the fatal shots. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life and the danger that lurked behind him. 5There was no way the victim could have defended himself, taken flight or avoided the assault. The attendance of treachery qualifies the killing to Murder. | |||||