This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v Cantonjos[34] the Court held that:Res gestae utterances refer to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The aforementioned requisites are present in this case. The res gestae or the startling event is the rape and death of the victim. The statements of Divina to Gorospe were made spontaneously and before she had the time to contrive or devise such declarations, and said statements all concerned the occurrence in question or the immediately attending circumstances thereof. | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Both Diosdado III and Godofredo denied the charges hurled against them. But, while it is true that alibi and denial are the weakest of the defenses as they can easily be fabricated,[68] absent such clear and positive identification, the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused must yield to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[69] Hence, while denial is concededly fragile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based thereon.[70] The rule in criminal law is firmly entrenched that verdicts of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[71] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, his declaration is admissible as part of the res gestae. A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[8] All these requisites are present in this case. The principal act, i.e., the stabbing, was a startling occurrence. The declaration was made right after the stabbing while the victim was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence, without any prior opportunity to contrive a story implicating the appellant. The declaration concerns the one who stabbed the victim. Thus, the trial court correctly appreciated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sanchez and Delos Santos on what the victim told them as part of the res gestae. | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As regards conspiracy, direct proof is not essential as conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.[60] In the case at bar, it was shown that the accused entered the victim's house together, armed with bladed weapons. In unison, they left the house carrying the victim.[61] The medico-legal report on the victim indicates that the victim suffered six stab wounds, three incised wounds and hematoma. Three of the stab wounds were penetrating stab wounds.[62] On cross-examination, PNP Major Florante Baltazar, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim, testified that, according to his measurements, more than one instrument was used in inflicting the stab and incised wounds.[63] In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, the existence of conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[64] The existence of conspiracy among all the accused-appellants was sufficiently established by the evidence presented. Thus, all the three accused-appellants are held liable for the killing of Nicanor Solis. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[6] All these requisites concur in the case at bar. The principal act, the mauling of the victim, was a startling occurrence. The declarations were made shortly after the mauling incident while the victim was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence, without any prior opportunity to contrive a story implicating accused-appellant. The declaration concerns the circumstances surrounding the mauling of Felix Taylaran. However, the declaration made by the victim to his daughter does not satisfy the second requirement of spontaneity because they were made a day after the incident and the exciting influence of the startling occurrence was no longer present. Nevertheless, we hold that Rosa Solarte's testimony on what her father told her constitutes independent relevant statements distinct from hearsay, and are thus admissible not as to the veracity thereof, but as proof of the fact that they had been uttered. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply, hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| which resulted in the victim's death unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[19] Circumstances qualifying criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence.[20] In the case at bar, no evidence was presented that the victim was sleeping when the accused stabbed him. | |||||