Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOEMAR C. QUILANG

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial.[17]Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[18]
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
Clearly, the trial court is correct in finding no ill motive on the part of any of the prosecution witnesses. The presumption is that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and was untainted by bias, and, thus, entitled to full faith and credit.[44]
	GR No. 179487 2010-11-15	ROMEO ILISAN Y PIABOL v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The fact that Gabriel Gaton is the victim's brother does not impair his credibility as a witness. Relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the culprit. The natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits.[16]
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, accused-appellant was unable to prove any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The presumption is that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and was untainted by bias, and thus entitled to full faith and credit.[45]
	GR No. 137554 2003-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION PER CURIAM
event, JO1 Joven left Amado Gale and the other detainee he was guarding (Charlito Domingo) when he bought coke and siopao on the ground floor of the building. JO1 Simpas also left the detainees when he purchased coffee for Amado who requested for the change of the coke to coffee.[76] There being no showing that Gale has any ill motive to testify against appellants, the presumption is that he was not so moved and his testimony was untainted with bias, and thus entitled to full faith and credit.[77]
	GR No. 120170 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG PARDO, J.
Furthermore, the witness was the sister of the victim, without any motive to testify falsely. In fact, being a relative of the victim of the crime, she is propelled by greater motive to see to it that the real culprit of the crime be punished. "The natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits."[23]