This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2002-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is set aside and a new one entered finding appellant Gario Alba guilty of the crime of homicide, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of nine (9) years of prision mayor as minimum and fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum,[39] to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000 as death indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P20,000 as exemplary damages. Costs de oficio. | |||||
|
2001-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Here there is no showing that Rolando Lovinaria was impelled by any improper motive to testify in court falsely. Without showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure his testimony, the presumption is that no such improper motive exists, and his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[28] | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A sudden attack by the assailant constitutes treachery only if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat.[39] But suddenness of an attack does not by itself prove the existence of treachery. There must also be proof that the accused consciously adopted the mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.[40] | |||||
|
2000-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[18] The Court is likewise not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) thereof.[19] After conducting a thorough review of the records, including the transcripts of stenographic notes we find no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the trial and appellate courts. In this case, the minor consistencies pointed out by appellant do not refer to the crux of the matter, which is the positive identification of appellant as the one who stabbed the victim from behind, twice. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of witnesses strengthen rather than impair their credibility.[20] The test is whether their testimonies agree on the essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole.[21] Contradictions between the contents of an affiant's affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility because it has long been within judicial notice that affidavits, which are usually taken ex parte are often incomplete and inaccurate.[22] Further, appellant testified that he could not think of any reason why the prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime.[23] Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[24] | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the first issue, regarding credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule admits of certain exceptions, such as: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[13] The Court is likewise not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) thereof.[14] | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| (2) to three (3) meters away from the victim. Terrified, they screamed and fled from the scene of the crime. The shouts prompted Norlito to go out of the house and there he saw appellant continuously hack the victim while lying facedown on the ground. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that Nina, Elena, and Norlito had improper motives to testify falsely against appellant and the rule is well settled that absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[9] In the absence of evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the appellant, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[10] Besides, appellant's version that he and the victim grappled for the bolo that led to the accidental hacking of the victim's shoulder is unbelievable and improbable. It is contrary to the nature and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim - located at the back of the head traversing to the neck towards the front, back of the neck traversing the right ear, horizontal wound to the back of the head, on the face and on the right and left shoulder.[11] In fact, Dr. Orbita who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver testified that the first wound inflicted was the horizontal wound to the back of the head, referring to wound no. 4 in the postmortem findings indicated above. The autopsy also revealed three (3) fatal wounds, which were all inflicted on the upper extremities of the victim - on the head, neck and lower part of the shoulder. These are physical evidence that the victim was not able to retaliate. Notably, with the nature of the wounds, Dr. Orbita affirmed that only one (1) weapon was used in inflicting them.[12] This is contrary to appellant's version that upon accidentally hacking the victim, he became afraid after he saw the Victim fall and immediately left. Thereafter, he saw Norlito enter the kitchen and later come out with a bolo, and with it, hack the victim continuously. If indeed an altercation existed between the victim and the prosecution witness Norlito prior to the intervention of herein appellant in grappling the bolo to defend Norlito, the latter could just use the bolo left on the table by appellant and not go inside the house to get another bolo. The story offered by appellant is hardly convincing and his testimony in this respect is wholly unreliable. Appellant also assails the characterization of the crime as murder despite insufficient proof to establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and in offsetting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with abuse of superior strength. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We uphold the conviction of the accused since the defense failed to impugn the credibility of prosecution witness Francisco Ignacio. In the absence of proof to the contrary, Ignacio's testimony could be motivated by none other than the genuine quest for truth and justice. He is bound to the accused by blood and the intimacy that permeates the Filipino family is legendary. To hear about a crime is hair-raising enough; to witness it could do no less than jolt oneself and embolden him to reveal the perpetrator thereof. For what advantage could impel Ignacio to ignore familial ties and the threats to his life by the relatives of the accused should Ignacio testify against him? Granting arguendo that the threat is only imagined, the defense still failed to ascribe to Ignacio any evil motive sufficient to debunk his revelation as a creditable witness to the crime. Absent any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.[13] | |||||