Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JONEL MANIO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 176981 2008-12-24	EDGAR GERASTA Y LAPUS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The relationship of witnesses Alberto and Teresita to the victim did not impair the credibility of their testimonies, absent any showing that they had improper motives. On the contrary, since they were closely related to the victim, their natural instinct would be to help bring the real culprit to justice. Hence, it would make them more believable, as it would be unnatural for them, who are interested in vindicating the crime to impute it to somebody other than the real culprit.[34] To blame an innocent man for the killing of the victim would serve them no purpose.[35]
	GR No. 140217 2003-02-21	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO PATOC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Besides, accused-appellant could only offer the defenses of denial and alibi. Denial is intrinsically a weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of accused-appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and evidentiary weight.[25] Moreover, in the absence of proof that the prosecution witnesses are moved by improper motive, it is presumed that they were not so moved and, therefore, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[26] That presumption has not been overcome in this case. Rufina and Christopher were related to the victim. Considering their close relationship, their natural instinct would be to help bring the real culprit to justice. To blame an innocent man for the killing of the victim would serve them no purpose.[27] Accordingly, the identification of accused-appellant as one of the killers of Basilio must, perforce, prevail over the bare denial of accused-appellant.
	GR No. 140217 2003-02-21	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO PATOC CALLEJO, SR., J.
With regard to the civil liability of the accused-appellant, the Court finds that the trial court correctly awarded the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim. In addition, however, the accused-appellant should pay them the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages for their sufferings which resulted from the violent death of the victim.[39]