This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Dacibar and Dicon, we ruled that "the fact that the first blotter report made by the victim's wife refers to the assailants as "unidentified persons" does not detract from the veracity of her positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime in a later report, and in the course of trial. In the first place, we have held that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value, as they do not constitute conclusive proof."[12] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Further, it is well settled that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value as they are not evidence of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded.[29] Hence, they do not constitute conclusive proof.[30] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When there is no evidence to indicate that the witness against the accused has been actuated by any improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony given by a witness is ordinarily accorded full faith and credit.[56] As a whole, we find the prosecution's witnesses and their testimonies credible. | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Thus, petitioner held the victim on the neck, accused Ferdinand pounded the head and other parts of the victim's body and accused Aplonieto stabbed him in the stomach. The chain of circumstances evinces complicity among the accused.[13] Incidentally, only petitioner was arrested and brought to trial. His two brothers remain at large. | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.[20] Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[21] Although accused-appellant was outside of the house when he fired, the victim was inside his house. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside.[22] | |||||
|
2001-02-12 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. x x x There is treachery when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to defend himself. The two conditions for treachery to be present are: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[37] | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| noted in its decision that the testimony of Cruz was ". . . direct, frank, unfaltering and straightforward . . . His testimony bore 'the marks of truth and sincerity', having been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in straightforward manner."[46] It also found that there is ". . . nothing in the records which would show any base motive or vile reason on the part of the witness to falsely implicate the herein accused."[47] It is well-settled that where there is no evidence that the witness against the accused was actuated by any improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, his testimony will be given full faith and credit.[48] Cruz's positive identification of the accused as the victim's assailant is corroborated by several pieces of circumstantial evidence. Immediately after Cruz heard a gunshot, he saw the accused carrying a U.S. carbine caliber .30 and running towards the house of one Francisca | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Thus, when circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other, it cannot be overcome by inconcrete and doubtful evidence submitted by the accused-appellants,[19] such as their alibi. To note, Barangay Pugad, where both accused-appellants claim they were at the time of the killing, is just separated from Barangay Tibagin by a river which did not render impossible their presence at the fishpond where Melvin was killed. Having failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene, accused-appellants' alibi shatters all the more.[20] That accused-appellant Fernando's alibi was supported by his mother Carmelita Tamayo[21] and accused-appellant Rodolfo's story by his wife Adelina Santos,[22] had no persuasive effect. Alibi becomes less plausible when it is corroborated merely by immediate relatives.[23] | |||||