Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PP Vs Ducay
PP Vs Ducay
PP Vs Ducay
86939
on the application for bail. Their testimonies were considered reproduced for the trial on the
merits. Edwin Labos was recalled as a rebuttal witness.
[4] TSN, 24 November 1986, 4-9.
[5] TSN, 23 January 1987, 5.
[6] TSN, 19 December 1986, 6-8.
[7] TSN, 23 January 1987, op. cit., 3.
[8] TSN, 19 August 1987, 5-6.
[9] TSN, 27 February 1987, 11-14.
[10] TSN, 18 March 1987, 4-9.
[11] TSN, 14 October 1987, 2-5.
[12] Id., 7-8.
[13] TSN, 14 October 1987, 4; 7.
[14] TSN, 10 February 1988, 6; TSN, 29 February 1988, 4.
[15] TSN, 29 February 1988, 6.
[16] TSN, 29 February 1988, 10-11.
[17] TSN, 10 February 1988, 10-12.
[18] TSN, 9 November 1987, 5; 10.
[19] Id., 4.
[20] TSN, 20 November 1987, 6-8.
[21] TSN, 11 December 1987, 5-6.
[22] TSN, 16 December 1987, 3-4.
[23] TSN, 11 December 1987, op. cit., 6-7.
[24] Id., 5-10.
[25] TSN, 3 June 1987, 4-5; 8-9; 12-13.
[26] OR, 305-318; Rollo, 30-43. Per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong.
[27] OR, 318; Rollo, 43.
[28] OR, 315-317.
[29] OR, 318.
[30] Id., 329-347.
[31] Id., 351-352.
[32] Id., 356.
[33] Rollo, 86-125.
Should be falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, i.e., false in one thing, false in everything.
[34]
Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 [1989]; People vs. Sanchez, 213 SCRA 70 [1992].
[48] See WIGMORE, J.H., op. cit., note 43, Section 1747.
[49] People vs. Collantes, 208 SCRA 853 [1992].
[50] People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 [1991]; People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992].
[51] OR, 349.
People vs.
[52] de la Cruz, 207 SCRA 632 [1992], citing
MORAN, Comments on the Rules of Court, vol. 4, 1980 ed., 340-41. See also, Reyes vs.
People, 71 Phil. 598 [1941].
[53] People vs. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398 [1948].
[54] People vs. Pama, G.R. Nos. 90297-98, 11 December 1992.
[55] People vs. Roallos, 113 SCRA 584 [1982]; People vs. Clamor, 198 SCRA 642 [1991].
People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748 [1967]; People vs. Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, 27
[56]
January 1993.
[57] Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court.
[58] Id.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
[59]
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, Revised Penal Code).
[60] People vs. Alonzo, 73 SCRA 483 [1976]; People vs. Pascual, 204 SCRA 618 [1991].
These are two of the three requisites of evident premeditation. The third requisite is that
[61]
there must be a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. (People vs. Narit, 197 SCRA 334 [1991];
People vs. Barba, 203 SCRA 436 [1991]; People vs. Buka, 205 SCRA 567 [1992]).
[62] People vs. Ampo-an, 187 SCRA 173 [1990].
[63] Section 19(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
[64] Article 50, Revised Penal Code.
[65] Article 61(3), Id.