This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is readily clear that the first requisite of self-defense is wanting. The unlawful aggression did not originate from the victim but from the appellant himself. Appellant was offended when the victim reprimanded him by telling him not to make fun of the sleeping child. Nurturing that ill feeling, appellant immediately went after the victim as the latter was leaving. Not suspecting that the appellant harbored rancor, the victim walked on his way home, thereby exposing his back to the attack of the appellant. With the brass knuckle around his right fist, and without warning, appellant poured his anger towards the victim by punching the latter's nape until he fell unconscious. When he came to his senses, appellant realized what he had done. Feeling responsible for it, he fled. With this evidence adduced by the prosecution, appellant's posture can hardly succeed. He was the aggressor. Appellant's behavior right after the incident runs contrary to his avowed innocence. His act of fleeing from the scene of the crime instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities are circumstances highly indicative of guilt and negate his claim of self-defense.[35] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This argument lack merit. Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons as one's natural interest would be to secure conviction of the real culprit.[34] On the other hand, the mere fact that Anino was not listed as a prosecution witness in the information does not necessarily make him an "eleventh hour witness." For one, the list is not exclusive since it states ". . . and others" were to be presented. Secondly, the prosecution has the prerogative to call witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information as, in any case, the defense still has the opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses.[35] | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant insists that he neither robbed nor killed Virginia Talens. He vehemently denies being the last person seen with the victim alive. He instead points to prosecution witness Orlando Pangan and his son, Richard Pangan, as the most likely malefactors. We note, however, that appellant failed to rebut Orlando Pangan's testimony that it was appellant who was last seen with the victim alive about 3:00 a.m. of March 6, 1992, in the company of appellant who was her next-door-neighbor. [23] Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. [24] Denial is negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimonies of credible witnesses who positively testified that appellant was at the locus criminis and was the last person seen with the victim alive. [25] | |||||