Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SPO1 VIRGILIO G. BRECINIO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181083 2010-01-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIGILDO SALLE SOBUSA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's attempt to mitigate his culpability by claiming that he voluntarily surrendered to the police immediately after being informed of the charges against him is futile. Jurisprudence requires that a surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities[26] either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture.[27] The following requisites should likewise be present: (1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; (3) the surrender was voluntary; and (4) there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed.[28] In this case, the accused-appellant surrendered only after having been informed of the charge of rape against him or about two months from the commission of the alleged crime.[29] He even denied the said charge upon his purported surrender. The alleged surrender, therefore, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.[30]
	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.[41] A denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative, self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot therefore be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[42] Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime.[43] Indeed, denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against accused-appellant. Absence of improper motives makes a testimony worthy of full faith and credence.[44] In this case, there being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimonies of Doris Labini and Tomasito de los Santos pointing to accused-appellant as the culprit, no weight can be given to his denial.
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against appellants. Absence of improper motives makes a testimony worthy of full faith and credence.[52] In this case, petitioner testified that he did not know of any reason why Mmes. Bona and Tan testified against him.[53]
	GR NO. 175881 2007-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against appellants. Absence of improper motive makes the testimony worthy of full faith and credence.[26] In this case, appellants, who were positively identified, testified that Asonda and Anggot had no ill motive to testify against them.[27] Moreover, ill motive has no bearing when accused were positively identified by credible eyewitnesses. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[28]
	GR NO. 163217 2006-04-18	CELESTINO MARTURILLAS v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, CJ
Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test done on him. While they were negative, that fact alone did not ipso facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this Court has held that a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.[63] In other words, it is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration.[64] Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the events during the shooting, including the presence of petitioner at the scene of the crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative paraffin test result, are of lesser probative value.