Lawyerly

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The testimony of a single eyewitness, if found to be positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction,[43] especially when it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[44] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness when found sufficient needs no corroboration, save only where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses. [45] Errorless testimonies can hardly be expected especially when a witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. Such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed."[46] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[47]

GR No. 175594

2007-09-28

PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court had previously said that aside from its intrinsic weakness, the defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witness who had no improper motive whatsoever to falsely testify against the accused. Between the self-serving testimony of the accused and the positive identification by the prosecution witness, the latter deserves greater credence.[24] Moreover, in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense. Motive becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. Indeed, motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a criminal case. Hence, whether or not appellant had any motive in killing the victim, his conviction may still follow from the positive and categorical identification made by the witness.[25]

GR NO. 163705

2007-07-30

NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

Moreover, we give weight to the trial court's observation that Misayah testified "in a straightforward manner" and positively identified not only Cruz as the one who choked him but also the other two (2) accused.[34] The testimony of a sole witness, though uncorroborated, is sufficient for conviction if it is free from any sign of impropriety or falsehood.[35] The testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[36] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient and needs no corroboration, save only in offenses where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses.[37]

GR No. 151834

2004-06-08

PEOPLE v. JUAN G. ESCOTE

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

Treachery was properly appreciated by the trial court. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[19] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberately without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Carlos Dueñas was completely unarmed and totally unaware of what Escote wanted or planned to do. He was suddenly shot by Escote, causing a gunshot wound which resulted to his death.

GR No. 132743

2001-11-22

PEOPLE v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

QUISUMBING, J.

On this score, we find that this qualifying circumstance was specifically alleged in the information. We also find that the trial court correctly appreciated this circumstance. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from defense which the offended party might make.[22] For treachery to be considered a qualifying circumstance, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to insure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (b) the said means, method or manner was deliberately adopted.[23] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[24] This was how Luceñara was attacked and killed. He was shot at the back of his head to insure that the killing was consummated without any risk to appellant, and again on Luceñara's belly after he fell down. The killing was also totally unexpected since the victim was ambushed on his way home in the middle of the night.

GR No. 131841

2001-10-23

PEOPLE v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

QUISUMBING, J.

As found by the trial court, the killing of Dioscoro Oasnon was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. We are in agreement. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[32] The attack was deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[33] As told by Rodrigo Oronan on the witness stand, the stabbing spree was sudden and unexpected. The victim had no inkling they were going to be attacked. They were on their way to the house of a friend and only stopped by to purchase some cigarettes.[34] That the attack was done swiftly and calculatingly can be inferred from the fact that it took more or less just two minutes from the time Ruben and Anthony stood up to attack Dioscoro, to the time Vicente saw Dioscoro already fallen.[35] Likewise, the nature and availability of weapons used in the attack also indicate that the perpetrators planned and prepared for it. Said the trial court in its decision of conviction, which deserves our concurrence: Finally, the offense charged is properly that of Murder qualified by treachery since the deceased was unarmed, and was in no position to ward off or repel the sudden, concerted and simultaneous attack against him by the three accused, with one hacking and stabbing and the others striking with steel bars or crowbars. Again the various wounds inflicted on the deceased bear mute testimony aforesaid to the suddenness, severity and ferocity of the attack, thus affording them to insure the killing of Oasnon without any risk arising from any defense he might make.[36]

GR No. 122858

2001-02-28

BIEN D. SEVALLE v. CA

MENDOZA, J.

Petitioner has not shown that Rosemarie had any ulterior motive in testifying against him. Rosemarie knew that by lying she would be enabling the real culprit to go scot-free. Human experience tells us that a person, in the absence of a showing of any ill motive, would not impute a grave crime upon another unless the same is true.[14] In the absence of evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill will towards petitioner, her testimony must be presumed to be true.[15] In People v. Pama,[16] this Court held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in the heinous crime, the witness' testimony must be accorded full faith and credit.

GR No. 128117

2001-02-28

PEOPLE v. EDGAR CAWAYAN Y CRUZ

PARDO, J.

"In the absence of any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witness to impute so grave a wrong against the appellant, the defense of denial hardly assumes probative value."[20]

GR Nos. 132696-97

2001-02-12

PEOPLE v. RAMON NAVARRO

KAPUNAN, J.

The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn these findings. Regaspi's testimony on the manner by which accused-appellant killed Romeo Calizar was straightforward, clear and consistent. The fact that only Regaspi came out as an eyewitness to indict accused-appellant does not detract from his credibility. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction. Indeed, criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.[34] Moreover, the defense failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of Regaspi to testify against accused-appellant. In the absence of any evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[35]

GR No. 123176

2000-10-13

PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL Y LEGASPI

QUISUMBING, J.

The qualifying circumstance of treachery clearly attended the killing of Gloria and the maiming of Alejandra, as the two conditions for the existence of treachery are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.[28] Appellant's sons went to Gloria's house armed with bolos, which ensured the execution of their nefarious deed evidently without risk to themselves and without affording their victims any real chance to defend themselves.[29] The killing of Gloria having been attended by treachery, it is without doubt murder.

GR No. 116739

2000-07-31

PEOPLE v. RICARDO TORTOSA Y BACLAO

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.

GR No. 128890

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. EDDIE MENDOZA Y PASAG

BELLOSILLO, J.

Although evident premeditation is alleged in the Information as an aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly disregarded it considering that the prosecution did not prove the concurrence of these elements: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and, (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and its execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[27] Evident premeditation must be proved as clearly as the crime itself and may not be deduced merely from conclusions and inferences.[28]

	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The testimony of a single eyewitness, if found to be positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction,[43] especially when it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[44] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness when found sufficient needs no corroboration, save only where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses. [45] Errorless testimonies can hardly be expected especially when a witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. Such inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and unrehearsed."[46] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[47]
	GR No. 175594 2007-09-28	PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court had previously said that aside from its intrinsic weakness, the defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witness who had no improper motive whatsoever to falsely testify against the accused. Between the self-serving testimony of the accused and the positive identification by the prosecution witness, the latter deserves greater credence.[24] Moreover, in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense. Motive becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. Indeed, motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a criminal case. Hence, whether or not appellant had any motive in killing the victim, his conviction may still follow from the positive and categorical identification made by the witness.[25]
	GR NO. 163705 2007-07-30	NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Moreover, we give weight to the trial court's observation that Misayah testified "in a straightforward manner" and positively identified not only Cruz as the one who choked him but also the other two (2) accused.[34] The testimony of a sole witness, though uncorroborated, is sufficient for conviction if it is free from any sign of impropriety or falsehood.[35] The testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner.[36] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient and needs no corroboration, save only in offenses where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses.[37]
	GR No. 151834 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. JUAN G. ESCOTE DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Treachery was properly appreciated by the trial court. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[19] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberately without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Carlos Dueñas was completely unarmed and totally unaware of what Escote wanted or planned to do. He was suddenly shot by Escote, causing a gunshot wound which resulted to his death.
	GR No. 132743 2001-11-22	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES QUISUMBING, J.
On this score, we find that this qualifying circumstance was specifically alleged in the information. We also find that the trial court correctly appreciated this circumstance. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from defense which the offended party might make.[22] For treachery to be considered a qualifying circumstance, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to insure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (b) the said means, method or manner was deliberately adopted.[23] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[24] This was how Luceñara was attacked and killed. He was shot at the back of his head to insure that the killing was consummated without any risk to appellant, and again on Luceñara's belly after he fell down. The killing was also totally unexpected since the victim was ambushed on his way home in the middle of the night.
	GR No. 131841 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA QUISUMBING, J.
As found by the trial court, the killing of Dioscoro Oasnon was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. We are in agreement. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[32] The attack was deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[33] As told by Rodrigo Oronan on the witness stand, the stabbing spree was sudden and unexpected. The victim had no inkling they were going to be attacked. They were on their way to the house of a friend and only stopped by to purchase some cigarettes.[34] That the attack was done swiftly and calculatingly can be inferred from the fact that it took more or less just two minutes from the time Ruben and Anthony stood up to attack Dioscoro, to the time Vicente saw Dioscoro already fallen.[35] Likewise, the nature and availability of weapons used in the attack also indicate that the perpetrators planned and prepared for it. Said the trial court in its decision of conviction, which deserves our concurrence: Finally, the offense charged is properly that of Murder qualified by treachery since the deceased was unarmed, and was in no position to ward off or repel the sudden, concerted and simultaneous attack against him by the three accused, with one hacking and stabbing and the others striking with steel bars or crowbars. Again the various wounds inflicted on the deceased bear mute testimony aforesaid to the suddenness, severity and ferocity of the attack, thus affording them to insure the killing of Oasnon without any risk arising from any defense he might make.[36]
	GR No. 122858 2001-02-28	BIEN D. SEVALLE v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner has not shown that Rosemarie had any ulterior motive in testifying against him. Rosemarie knew that by lying she would be enabling the real culprit to go scot-free. Human experience tells us that a person, in the absence of a showing of any ill motive, would not impute a grave crime upon another unless the same is true.[14] In the absence of evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill will towards petitioner, her testimony must be presumed to be true.[15] In People v. Pama,[16] this Court held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in the heinous crime, the witness' testimony must be accorded full faith and credit.
	GR No. 128117 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. EDGAR CAWAYAN Y CRUZ PARDO, J.
"In the absence of any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witness to impute so grave a wrong against the appellant, the defense of denial hardly assumes probative value."[20]
	GR Nos. 132696-97 2001-02-12	PEOPLE v. RAMON NAVARRO KAPUNAN, J.
The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn these findings. Regaspi's testimony on the manner by which accused-appellant killed Romeo Calizar was straightforward, clear and consistent. The fact that only Regaspi came out as an eyewitness to indict accused-appellant does not detract from his credibility. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction. Indeed, criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.[34] Moreover, the defense failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of Regaspi to testify against accused-appellant. In the absence of any evidence or any indicium that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[35]
	GR No. 123176 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL Y LEGASPI QUISUMBING, J.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery clearly attended the killing of Gloria and the maiming of Alejandra, as the two conditions for the existence of treachery are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.[28] Appellant's sons went to Gloria's house armed with bolos, which ensured the execution of their nefarious deed evidently without risk to themselves and without affording their victims any real chance to defend themselves.[29] The killing of Gloria having been attended by treachery, it is without doubt murder.
	GR No. 116739 2000-07-31	PEOPLE v. RICARDO TORTOSA Y BACLAO 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.
	GR No. 128890 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. EDDIE MENDOZA Y PASAG BELLOSILLO, J.
Although evident premeditation is alleged in the Information as an aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly disregarded it considering that the prosecution did not prove the concurrence of these elements: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and, (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and its execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[27] Evident premeditation must be proved as clearly as the crime itself and may not be deduced merely from conclusions and inferences.[28]

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN GALANO Y GLORIA