This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000), every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child.[15] | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| thereof. Neither would the delay in identifying the perpetrators render their testimony less plausible. We have consistently held that failure to immediately reveal the identity of the perpetrator of a felony will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness[10] if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[11] True, in the case at bar, the identification of the accused-appellants took place when they were arrested after one week. However, as explained by the prosecution witnesses, they described accused-appellants immediately after the incident, which became the bases for their subsequent arrest.[12] The prosecution was able to establish the essential elements of robbery with homicide, to wit: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animo | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On this score, we find merit in accused-appellant's contention. Treachery or alevosia is committed when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[9] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[10] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| To be sure, settled in this jurisdiction is the rule that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its firsthand impressions as a witness testifies before it.[22] Its evaluation of a testimony is accorded the highest respect because of its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine if they are telling the truth or not.[23] This opportunity enables the trial judge to detect better that thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernable from a mere reading of the personal record of a reviewing court.[24] | |||||