This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-01-24 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| A: No, sir. Q: In fact when the body of Willy Ondo was already recovered, you still did not inform anybody of what you have seen? A: I did not tell anybody because I waited for the brothers and sisters of Willy Ondo whom I would tell the incident which I have seen. The inanity of accused-appellants' defensive posture becomes more pronounced with each passing argument. Now they assert that Jeofrey was less believable merely because some other television program, and not Power Rangers, as he claims was being shown at the time he was supposed to be watching television at 9:00 o'clock in the evening of 27 December 1996. Being battered by the defense counsel on the matter, Jeofrey explained that he was so riveted to the television program Power Rangers that he failed to keep track of the title of the other programs or of the exact time they were actually shown. The triviality of the alleged "inconsistencies" can hardly affect either the substance or the veracity and weight of Jeofrey Abe's testimony which, on the contrary, can serve to reinforce rather than weaken his credibility.[14] | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that delay in reporting a carnal violation committed by a father against his daughter due to threats is hardly unjustified. In this case, Rochelle was threatened by accused-appellant with death should she report the incident to anyone. Rogelio possessed a gun as an asset of the 28th Infantry Batallion.[9] Thus her delay of almost two (2) years and two (2) months does not produce a negative effect on her accusation. In the numerous cases of rape that have reached this Court, we find that it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their honor because of the rapists' threat on their lives.[10] In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence for months or even years.[11] With more reason would a girl ravished by her own father keep quiet about what had befallen her. Furthermore, it is unfair to judge the action of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected of mature individuals under the same circumstances.[12] | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Section 12 (1) Art III of the Commission states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." Thus the prohibition for custodial investigation conducted without the assistance of counsel. Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate is inadmissible in evidence.[10] The prohibition however, does not extend to a person in a police line-up because that stage of an investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation.[11] It has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.[12] The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature.[13] It has also been held that an uncounseled identification at the police line-up does not preclude the admissibility of an in-court identification.[14] The identification made by the private complainant in the police line-up pointing to Pavillare as one of his abductors is admissible in evidence although the accused-appellant was not assisted by counsel. In court, the private complainant positively identified Paviallare as one of his captors and testified as follows: "Q: Were you able to recognize the faces of the men and woman who abducted you on the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: Yes, sir I can recognize if I see them again. Q: If you see them in court will you be able to identify them? A: Yes, sir. Q: Please point to them if the accused are inside the court room? A: That man, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointing at a man seated inside the court room and when asked to identify himself he gave his name as Eduardo Pavillare. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Other than the accused Pavillare, do you recognize anybody else in this court room if among those who abducted you in the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: None, sir. Q: Tell us how were you abducted by the accused Pavillare and his companions in that particular date in the afternoon of February 12, 1996? A: While I was returning to my motorcycle, they blocked my way and asked for my name, sir. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Who blocked your way and asked for your name? A: He was infront of his companions, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness referring to accused earlier identified as Eduardo Pavillare. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: If you know, Mr. Singh, where were you taken by the accused after they abducted you at the corner of Roces Avenue and Scout Reyes St., Quezon City? A: It was a deserted street somewhere in St. Joseph College, Quezon City, sir. Q: After you reached that deserted place, what happened next, if any? A: They asked me for P100,000.00 and I told them that I have only P5,000,00 and they told me that if I give P 100,000.00 they will let me go, sir. Q: Who demanded the amount of P100,000.00 from you? WITNESS: A: He is the one, sir. INTERPRETER: Again, witness pointing to the accused earlier , identified as Pavillare. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Could you tell us what did your abductors tell to Lakhvir while they are talking over the telephone? A: They told him that they should pay the amount of money for my release, sir. Q: Incidentally, can you tell us who among your abductors who actually talked to Lakvir over the telephone? A: He is the one, sir. INTERPRETER: Again, witness is referring to accused earlier identified as Pavillare. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Why do you know that it was the accused Pavillare who was talking to Lakhvir over the telephone? A: Because I was near him and I saw him talking to Lakhvir, sir. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Where did the two of you go? A: Inside the mini-grocery, sir. Q: After you went inside this mini-grocery, what happened next, if any? A: I saw my cousin Lakhvir. He asked me if I am okey and I told him that they bit me up but I am still fine, sir. Q: After you told your cousin that you are okey except for the beating that you got but you are fine, what transpired next, if any? A: Lakhvir gave the P20,000.00, sir. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: To whom did Lakhvir handed the P20,000.00? A: To him sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointed to the accused Pavillare earlier identified. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Why do you know that only P20,000.00 was handed over by accused Pavillare? A: Because they counted the money and they complained about it, sir. Q: Who counted the money? A: He was the one who counted the money, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness pointing to accused Pavillare earlier identified. ATTY. CRUZ: Q: Were you present when Pavillare counted the money? A: Yes, sir. Q: After Pavillare got the P20,000.00, what happened next, if any? A: They left immediately and they left me too, and we went to get my Motorcycle, sir."[15] | |||||