Scribd
Upload
493 views2 pages

21 - G.R.No.195021 - Velasquez V People - MSulit - March 21

1. Nicolas and Victor Velasquez, along with four others, attacked Jesus Del Mundo with stones and wooden poles without provocation, seriously injuring him. 2. Maria Teresita Viado witnessed the attack from a distance and testified to corroborate Jesus' account of the events. 3. The court found that while Jesus may not have remembered every precise detail of the attack due to the trauma, his overall narrative of the petitioners assaulting him was credible enough to find them guilty of serious physical injuries beyond reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Michelle Sulit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
493 views2 pages

21 - G.R.No.195021 - Velasquez V People - MSulit - March 21

1. Nicolas and Victor Velasquez, along with four others, attacked Jesus Del Mundo with stones and wooden poles without provocation, seriously injuring him. 2. Maria Teresita Viado witnessed the attack from a distance and testified to corroborate Jesus' account of the events. 3. The court found that while Jesus may not have remembered every precise detail of the attack due to the trauma, his overall narrative of the petitioners assaulting him was credible enough to find them guilty of serious physical injuries beyond reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Michelle Sulit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REMEDIAL LAW>Evidence>Testimonial Evidence

NICOLAS VELASQUEZ and VICTOR VELASQUEZ, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE


OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2019
(Second Division)

FACTS: On May 24, 2003, petitioners Nicolas Velasquez and Victor Velasquez,
along with four others, while armed with stones and wooden poles, hit Jesus Del
Mundo, without provocation. Jesus testified on his own ordeal. In support of his
version of the events, the prosecution presented the testimony of Maria Teresita
Viado who embarked on a search for Jesus, together with his wife, Ana Del
Mundo, but took separate ways. From her vantage point, she saw the accused
mauling Jesus.

The defense offered a different version of events. However, the RTC of Dagupan
found petitioners and Felix Caballeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
attempted murder and Sonny Boy Velasquez of less serious physical injuries.
The CA found that petitioners and Caballeda were only liable for serious physical
injuries because "intent to kill was not attendant inasmuch as the accused-
appellants, despite their superiority in numbers and strength, left the victim alive
and, none of the injuries or wounds inflicted upon the victim was fatal." Hence,
this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case was to rise or fall based on the testimony of
Maria Teresita, the “lone eyewitness”?

HELD: No, the petition has no merit. Petitioner’s invocation of self-defense


relieved the prosecution of its burden of proving the acts constitutive of the
offense. They took upon themselves the burden of establishing their innocence,
and cast their lot on their capacity to prove their own affirmative allegations.

Petitioner’s primordial characterization of Maria Teresita as the "lone


eyewitness," upon whose testimony the prosecution's case was to rise or fall, is
plainly erroneous. Apart from her, Jesus testified about his own experience of
being mauled by petitioners and their co-accused. Maria Teresita's testimony
was only in support of what Jesus recounted.

Regarding Jesus' recollection of events, petitioners' contention centers on Jesus'


supposedly flawed recollection of who among the six dealt him, which specific
blow, and using which specific weapon. These contentions are too trivial to even
warrant an independent, point by point audit by this Court. Jurisprudence is
replete with clarifications that a witness' recollection of crime need not be
foolproof: Witnesses cannot be expected to recollect with exactitude every
minute detail of an event. This is especially true when the witnesses testify as to
facts, which transpired in rapid succession, attended by flurry and excitement.
This is especially true of a victim's recollection of his or her own harrowing
ordeal. One who has undergone a horrifying and traumatic experience "cannot
be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account" of every
minute.

Jesus' supposed inconsistencies on the intricacies of who struck him which


specific blow can be forgiven. The merit of Jesus' testimony does not depend on
whether he has an extraordinary memory despite being hit on the head multiple
times. Rather, it is in his credible narration of his entire ordeal, and how
petitioners and their co- accused were its authors. On this, his testimony was
unequivocal.

You might also like