This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It must also be noted that appellant was arrested only five hours from the occurrence of the crimes. It is not possible that within such short span of time, appellant would be able to know the details of the crimes as he described them when he gave his confession if it were true that he really did not commit them. The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details which could only be supplied by the accused reflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may be considered voluntary.[35] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Even the unwilling co-plaintiffs' testimonies before the RTC are hearsay. Their probative value is not based on personal knowledge,[18] but on the knowledge of some other person who was never presented on the witness stand.[19] Thus, they must be excluded, because the party against whom they were presented was deprived of the opportunity for cross-examination.[20] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Seventh, by the same token, it also is out of the ordinary for accused-appellant Macapanpan to remain in the hut up to the next day instead of immediately leaving to avoid reprisal for the rape he allegedly committed. As held in People v. Licayan,[44] the unexplained flight of the accused may as a general rule be taken as evidence of his guilt. The case at bar involves the converse situation. Instead of fleeing, accused-appellant was the last person to leave the hut with Jay Salem,[45] thirty minutes after complainant and Necy Adarlo left at 5:00 a.m.[46] | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We agree. The interviews are hearsay and thus lack probative value, because the persons interviewed by PO2 de Asis were never presented in court.[31] It is of no moment that no timely objection was raised during the trial in the face of such evidence.[32] A conviction can never be rooted thereon, because it is not grounded on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person who was not cross-examined on the witness stand.[33] Thus, the court a quo erred when it used the interviews conducted by PO2 de Asis. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| them. These two instances of flight by accused-appellant, taken together with the other circumstances established by the prosecution, support the trial court's finding of accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion."[9] However, we do not agree with the trial court that the crime committed was murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| that of guilt of the accused; and, (d) The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused as to convince beyond reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the offense. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one (1) particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.[18] Under the rules, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict an accused if the following requisites concur: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and, (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such | |||||