This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On the second issue, the petitioner complains that Commissioner Funa failed to consider Heredia's affidavit of retraction.[17] As a rule, we view retractions with caution; they can be bought and obtained through threats, intimidation, or monetary consideration.[18] The better rule is to examine them closely by considering the original, the new statements and the surrounding circumstances, based on the rules of evidence.[19] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, a witness' delay in reporting what she knew about a crime does not render her testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.[22] In this case, Basilia had adequately explained her reason for not immediately revealing what she knew about the incident. According to her, she was advised by the police to divulge what she knew only in court.[23] No improper motive on the part of Basilia to falsely testify against him was shown by appellant. Though Basilia is the victim's sister, it was not proved she was biased. It is settled that the relationship of a witness to the victim does not of itself impair the credibility of the witness.[24] | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants deny the existence of treachery, nighttime and abuse of public position to aggravate the commission of the crimes. It is settled that qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed but must be established by clear and convincing evidence, as conclusively as the killing itself.[31] The defense alleges that there is no evidence that accused-appellants made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. For treachery to be considered, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[32] In this case, treachery was not present. In a long line of cases, the Court held that "the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part."[33] | |||||