Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    People v. Callao

    Uploaded by

    Sanimar Lepornio
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the case of People v. Callao regarding the murder of Fernando Adlawan. [1] Sario Joaquin was the lone eyewitness who testified that he saw the accused brutally kill the victim with an iron rod and knife. [2] The trial court found the accused guilty based on Sario's testimony. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, stating that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward and credible, as was determined was the case for Sario's testimony.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Callao

    Uploaded by

    Sanimar Lepornio
    49 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the case of People v. Callao regarding the murder of Fernando Adlawan. [1] Sario Joaquin was the lone eyewitness who testified that he saw the accused brutally kill the victim with an iron rod and knife. [2] The trial court found the accused guilty based on Sario's testimony. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, stating that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward and credible, as was determined was the case for Sario's testimony.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE V. CALLAO

    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 Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the case of People v. Callao regarding the murder of Fernando Adlawan. [1] Sario Joaquin was the lone eyewitness who testified that he saw the accused brutally kill the victim with an iron rod and knife. [2] The trial court found the accused guilty based on Sario's testimony. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, stating that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward and credible, as was determined was the case for Sario's testimony.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    People v. Callao

    Uploaded by

    Sanimar Lepornio
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the case of People v. Callao regarding the murder of Fernando Adlawan. [1] Sario Joaquin was the lone eyewitness who testified that he saw the accused brutally kill the victim with an iron rod and knife. [2] The trial court found the accused guilty based on Sario's testimony. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, stating that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward and credible, as was determined was the case for Sario's testimony.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE V.

    CALLAO

    G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018

    Facts:

    That on or about the 15th day of July, 2006 in the Municipality of Tayasan,

    Negros Oriental, the above named accused suddenly attack and strike the

    forehead of Fernando Adlawan with the use of an iron rod and thereafter,

    with the use of a knife, opened the stomach of the said victim. During trial,

    the prosecution presented its lone witness, Sario Joaquin, who testified

    that he saw how brutal the accused killed the victim. On the other hand,

    the accused put forth the defense of denial.

    The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hesson

    appealed the RTC’s in the CA but the latter affirmed the decision with

    modification.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the evidence sufficiently establishes Hesson’s guilt.

    Ruling:

    No. Sario’s testimony, although uncorroborated, can be relied upon. Well

    settled is the principle that the testimony of a single witness, if

    straightforward and categorical, is sufficient to convict. As clearly put by

    the Court in the case of People v. Hillado, 307 SCRA 535 (1999). Thus, the

    testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial

    court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony

    bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered
    spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner. Witnesses are to

    be weighed, not numbered. Evidence is assessed in terms of quality and

    not quantity. Therefore, it is not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt

    on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness. For although the number

    of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence,

    preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction

    can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a

    single witness. Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary “only when

    there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the

    truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.” Moreover, the

    Certificate of Death of Fernando stating that he died of multiple stab

    wounds corroborates Sario’s testimony.

    The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court on the

    credibility of the witnesses, which findings were likewise affirmed by the

    CA. Indeed, there is no showing that said findings are tainted with

    arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and

    influence. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment

    deserves great weight, and may even be conclusive and binding, as it is in

    the best position to make such determination, being the one who has

    personally heard the accused and the witnesses.

    You might also like