Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of in the Information are not punishable by law since internet libel is not covered
by Article 353 of the RPC; and the Information is fatally defective for failure to
designate the offense charged and the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the ofense of libel.
2.
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Jose Pepito D. Combate was charged of killing using a
frearm and with treachery Edmund Osabel and Leopoldo Guiro in Negros
Occidental. He stands convicted of the crime of Murder and Homicide, as defned
and penalized under Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
respectively. He was sentenced to suffer the penalties of reclusion temporal
and reclusion perpetua by the RTC. The decision was afirmed by the CA. Hence a
petition before the court with the appellant contending the the RTC erroneously
rendered the judgment as it failed to consider the inconsistencies of the testimonies
of the witneses.
ISSU
E:
1.
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of the
crimes of homicide and murder despite the fact that his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt?
2.
RULING:
Time-tested is the doctrine that the trial courts assessment of the
credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with fnality.
The Supreme Court will not interfere with that assessment, absent any indication
that the lower court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its
discretion.
Complementing the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor
and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than
weaken, the credibility of witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not
contrived or rehearsed. As the Court put it in People v. Cristobal, Trivial
inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness
rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.
A careful review of the records shows that the RTC, as well as the CA,
committed no reversible error when it gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, as opposed to accused- appellants bare denials.
Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and
not merely on its truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to
consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said
parts. In ascertaining the facts established by witnesses, everything stated by
them on direct, cross, and redirect examinations must be calibrated and
considered. It must be stressed in this regard that facts imperfectly or erroneously
stated in an answer to one question may be supplied or explained as qualifed by
the answer to other question. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not
strictly applied to this jurisdiction.
Defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification
For his defense, accused-appellant wants this Court to believe his innocence
and ofers his version of the facts wherein he did not commit the crime. This Court is
not persuaded.
Categorical and consistent positive identifcation, absent any showing of ill
motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the
defense of denial. Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identifed by
the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and accused- appellant was unable
to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any consideration other
than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were
not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credit.
Lest it be overlooked, accused-appellant fed to Victorias City, Negros
Occidental right after the
incident, an act that is evidence of his guilt. It is well-established that the
fight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and fight, when
unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.
Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.
Procedure;
2. Whether respondents are civilly liable for damages under Articles 32(4)
and (9) of the Civil
Code;
and
3. Whether the fndings in the administrative case against petitioner are
conclusive in this case.
RULIN
G:
The petition has no merit.
Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to be lawful, the arresting
offcer must have
personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is
pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the
appellants case falls within the frst scenario allowing the exercise of sound
discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances, other than
those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the
demands of equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow
bail.
On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the second scenario,
the appellate courts
stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on the
determination of the
proof of the presence of any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the
allowance of bail. This is so because the existence of any of those circumstances
is by itself suffcient to deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, a fnding that none of
the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail.
Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound
discretion approach.
Fiel
Genio
VS
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order assailing the July 14, 2008
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal, denying the Motion for Preliminary
Investigation filed by the petitioners who were charged with a violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The petitioners were charged for violation of paragraph e section 3 of RA
3019. An information has been fled against them for causing undue injury to the
government. It was subsequently quashed for failure of the prosecution to allege
and prove the amount of actual damages caused the government, which is an
essential element of the crime charged.
The Ofice of the Special Prosecutor re-fled the information; this time by
giving unwarranted beneft to a private person, to the prejudice of the government.
The petitioners fled a motion for preliminary investigation which was strongly
opposed by the prosecution. Petitioners contend that the failure of the prosecution
to conduct a new preliminary investigation before the fling of the second
Information constituted a violation of the law because the latter charged a different
offensethat is, violation of Section 3(e) by giving unwarranted beneft to
private parties. Hence, there was a substitution of the frst Information. They
argue that assuming that no substitution took place, at the very least, there was a
substantial amendment in the new information and that its submission should have
been preceded by a new preliminary investigation. Further, they claim that newly
discovered evidence mandates re-examination of the fnding of a prima facie cause
to fle the case.
But the Sandiganbayan denied the petition contending that there
was no substantial amendment in the information that would warrant the conduct
of a new preliminary investigation. Petitioners fled a motion for reconsideration
which was subsequently denied. Hence the petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a write of preliminary injunction and
TRO before the court.
Issue
s:
Whether or not the two (2) ways of violating section 3(e) of Republic Act
3019, namely: (a) by
causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any
private party any unwarranted beneft, advantage or preference constitute two
distinct and separate ofenses that would warrant a new or another preliminary
investigation.
Rulin
gs: