You are on page 1of 2

People vs.

Duerte

Facts:
After a drinking spree the group of Duetes,Quijada, Dequina, Mariaca, and
the appellant walked to the corner of Trading Boulevard, and realizing they have no
more cigarette they went to buy some. They returned to their spot and stayed to
smoke for a few minutes.

The victim also bought a coke at the same store and balut. While he was
eating Quijada approached him while others stayed at the corner of Trading
Boulevard. Soon after Deutes followed Quijada and stayed at the store listening to
the latter and the victim’s conversation.

Moments later Quijada was heard shouting angry for because his demands
for money was unheeded. The attack against the victim ensued and the others run
towards the incident as back up. The group mauled the victim except Mariaca who
was shocked in disbelief.

Quijada went out of the scence to fetch a plank of wood. When he returned to
the scene the others held the victim while Quijada delivered the blow on his nape.
Mairaca still in shock was commanded to run away from the scene and did what
was told.

The incident was seen by a garbage collector and shouted at them. Quijada
commanded the men not to move away from the body while still hitting it. When the
garbage collector was nearing them, the group scampered away to avoid
apprehension.

The appellant denied the accusations saying that he did not participate in
mauling the victim. His testimony was discredited by the positive testimony of the
garbage collector and his driver the he was one of the maulers.

The lower court found him guilty of the murder. The case was appealed.

He averred that the testimony of Mariaca was motivated by ill will so as to


avoid liability of the crime. He assails the credibility of the witnesses for having poor
visibility of the scene of the crime and the improbability of the opportunity to stare
at the assailants to recognize their faces. Lastly, the incompatibility of testimonies
of the witnesses was raised as error of the lower court.

Issue:
Whether or not the assignments of errors are meritorious?

Held:
The court said as regards that first assignment of error that Marica's
testimony is not attended with ill will. Stenographic notes gave the court the idea
that he was not motivated with malice, because he was steadfast wiht his
testomony regardless of rigorous cross-examinations and was corroborated by
Cabag, the garbage collector.
As to the second assignment of error, court noted that unusual acts of
violence committed right before the eyewitness they remember with high degree of
reliability of criminals. Cabag testified that the assailants stared at them before
scampering away which the court suggests that it is contrary reaction after having
committed a crime. The court further suggests that the group could have been
calculating their odds for another fight against the garbage collector because the
latter was unarmed. Thus Cabag had an opportunity to identify the assailants
before running away. It was also noted that the scene of the crime was well
illuminated with lamp post helping in the positive identification of the maulers.
As regards the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witnesses, the court
said that inconsistencies as to minor or collateral matter does not affect the
credibility of the witnesses.

You might also like