This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, as to the Manotoks' petition, CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[21] on 29 October 2003 which affirmed the resolution of the LRA.[22] The appellate court held that the LRA correctly deferred in giving due course to the Barques' petition for reconstitution, since there was as yet no final judgment upholding or annulling the Barque title. The Barques filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling.[23] As had occurred with the Barques' petition, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals granted the Barques' motion for reconsideration and on 24 February 2004, promulgated its Amended Decision[24] wherein it held that: | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The arson committed in the instant case involving an inhabited house or dwelling is covered by Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613.[9] In the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.[10] When these are present, the only issue is the credibility of the witness. Whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate,[11] sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his accurate recollection of the subject.[12] | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| An affidavit taken ex parte is judicially considered to be almost incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his accurate recollection of the incident.[7] Further, an examination of Cogasi's sworn statement shows, however, that there was actually no contradiction. His testimony was as follows: "x x x I noticed a maroon car x x x I noticed also two persons who were immediately following us went (sic) near the parked maroon car and one of them opened the door at the driver's side but immediately closed it."[8] Quite obviously, the two (2) persons who emerged from the Skyview Restaurant intended to board the parked car but changed their minds and, instead, followed Cogasi and his friends to the Ford Fierra that was parked. | |||||