Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    People V Delos Santos

    Uploaded by

    Precious Tibay
    The appellant Danny Delos Santos was convicted of murdering Rod Flores with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw the appellant emerge from behind Flores and stab him multiple times until he died. The appellant claimed he was at his aunt's house at the time of the murder. The court found the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony to be minor details that did not affect the substance of their claims. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that a sudden and unexpected attack from behind without provocation demonstrated treachery, and motive is not required to prove murder where positive eyewitness identification is provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Delos Santos

    Uploaded by

    Precious Tibay
    55 views1 page
    The appellant Danny Delos Santos was convicted of murdering Rod Flores with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw the appellant emerge from behind Flores and stab him multiple times until he died. The appellant claimed he was at his aunt's house at the time of the murder. The court found the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony to be minor details that did not affect the substance of their claims. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that a sudden and unexpected attack from behind without provocation demonstrated treachery, and motive is not required to prove murder where positive eyewitness identification is provided.

    Original Title

    People v Delos Santos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant Danny Delos Santos was convicted of murdering Rod Flores with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw the appellant emerge from behind Flores and stab him multiple times until he died. The appellant claimed he was at his aunt's house at the time of the murder. The court found the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony to be minor details that did not affect the substance of their claims. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that a sudden and unexpected attack from behind without provocation demonstrated treachery, and motive is not required to prove murder where positive eyewitness identification is provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views1 page

    People V Delos Santos

    Uploaded by

    Precious Tibay
    The appellant Danny Delos Santos was convicted of murdering Rod Flores with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw the appellant emerge from behind Flores and stab him multiple times until he died. The appellant claimed he was at his aunt's house at the time of the murder. The court found the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony to be minor details that did not affect the substance of their claims. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that a sudden and unexpected attack from behind without provocation demonstrated treachery, and motive is not required to prove murder where positive eyewitness identification is provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

    DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y


    FERNANDEZ, appellant.
    G.R. No. 135919. May 9, 2003
    FACTS:
    ● Upon one of the statements of the witness (Marcelino De Leon), he saw that Rod
    Flores was drinking gin with some men. As he was about to fetch water, he suddenly
    sees appellant emerged from the back of Flores and stabbed him multiple times and
    ceased only after he saw him dead.
    ● Dr. Caballero declared that Flores suffered 21 stab wounds and 11of which were fatal
    and said that it was possible that appellant was behind Flores considering the stab
    wounds inflicted in his back.
    ● But appellant denied the accusation and said that on the exact time, he was in his
    Auntie’s house 40 meters away from the scene of the crime and it was seconded by a
    certain Sonny Bautista and watched television.
    ● Appellant also said that earlier that day, they met when he is fetching water but there is
    no altercation between them hence, he couldn’t understand why there are testimonies
    against him. But the appellant contends that there were inconsistencies as to the
    testimony of the witness and they failed to prove that appellant has a motive to kill
    Flores.
    ● Trial court held that Danny Delos Santos found guilty of the crime of murder with the
    qualifying circumstance of treachery.
    ISSUE:
    ● Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of murder with
    qualifying circumstance of treachery based on the testimony of the alleged eyewitness
    since there was inconsistencies in them.
    RULING:
    ● The court said that the inconsistencies were understandable since they are drinking
    gin at the time the crime happened. Many the time the court ruled that inconsistencies
    in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral
    matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of
    their testimony. What is important is that the two witnesses were one in saying that it
    was the appellant who stabbed Flores with a knife.
    ● When appellant argues that since the witnesses said that there was no altercation
    between him and Flores, it now follows that there is no motive to kill but the court
    said no! Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the
    accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately
    established.
    ● Therefore, the Court affirmed the Trial Courts decision since the prosecution was able
    to establish that appellant's attack on Flores was from behind without any slightest
    provocation on his part and that it was sudden and unexpected- a clear case of
    treachery. Where the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from
    behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as
    treacherous. There being treachery, appellant's conviction for murder is in order.

    You might also like