This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Neither did Valentin Velecina's relationship with Ruben Velecina render his testimony biased. Relationship, by itself, does not give rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it impair the credibility of witnesses or tarnish their testimonies. The relationship of a witness to the victim would even make his testimony more credible, it being unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime charged and prosecute another person other than the real culprit.[41] Relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack for remembering the faces of the assailants more than anybody else, and would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by having the felon brought to justice and meted the proper penalty.[42] In the absence of any improper motive on the part of the witness, his relationship to the victim cannot impair the weight of his testimony.[43] | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The records show that the day after the stabbing of the victim or on October 6, 1997, Ulyses Soto (Soto),[8] Edwin[9] and Aquino[10] gave their respective sworn statements before the local police authorities on what they witnessed, the substance of which statements Soto and Edwin were later to echo at the witness stand. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| That Violeta and Joseph Ryan were wife and son of the victim does not detract from their credibility, nor diminish the weight of their testimonies. Relatives of victims of crimes have a natural knack for remembering the face of the attacker and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with vindicating the crime by having the felon brought before the bar of justice.[51] Appellants did not point to any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against them, or implicate them in the commission of heinous crimes. Hence, we can only conclude that no such improper motive exists and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit.[52] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| On the second assignment of error, we rule that the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The two elements of treachery have been proved in the case at bar, namely: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the assailant(s) consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means or method of attack employed by him.[29] In the case at bar, the victim certainly could not defend himself in any way. They held and immobilized him before appellant Marcos Gialolo slashed his neck with a scythe. | |||||