This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Such contention is likewise untenable. The prosecution has the prerogative to choose the evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present. It has the discretion as to how it should present its case.[29] Moreover, the presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution.[30] In the present case, if petitioner believes that Tan is the principal witness who could exculpate him from liability by establishing that it was Tan and not him who signed the subject documents, the most prudent thing to do is to utilize him as his witness. Anyway, petitioner has the right to have compulsory process to secure Tan's attendance during the trial pursuant to Article III, Section 14(2)[31] of the Constitution. The records show, however, that petitioner did not invoke such right. In view of these, no suppression of evidence can be attributed to the prosecution. | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Treachery cannot be appreciated where, as in this case, there is nothing in the records that shows that appellant pondered upon the mode or method of attack to ensure the wounding and the killing of the victims; or to remove or diminish any risk to himself that might arise from the defense that they might make.[73] His decision to shoot them was clearly sudden. In the absence of treachery, the killing of Lapidante and the wounding of Lacaden cannot be qualified to murder and frustrated murder, respectively. | |||||