Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People vs. Amodia

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    350 views1 page
    Richard Roda witnessed seven people mauling someone near his restaurant. He identified three of the attackers, including Amodia, as regular customers. Roda did not immediately report it because he was threatened by the attackers, who stayed in the area for a few hours drinking beer. A few days later, Roda reported what he saw to the police. The court found Amodia and the others guilty of murder. Amodia argued that their non-flight from the crime scene proved their innocence, but the court ruled non-flight does not necessarily signify innocence and Roda's eyewitness testimony outweighed the defense's claims of denial and alibi.

    Original Description:

    evid

    Original Title

    1. People vs. Amodia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Roda witnessed seven people mauling someone near his restaurant. He identified three of the attackers, including Amodia, as regular customers. Roda did not immediately report it because he was threatened by the attackers, who stayed in the area for a few hours drinking beer. A few days later, Roda reported what he saw to the police. The court found Amodia and the others guilty of murder. Amodia argued that their non-flight from the crime scene proved their innocence, but the court ruled non-flight does not necessarily signify innocence and Roda's eyewitness testimony outweighed the defense's claims of denial and alibi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    350 views1 page

    People vs. Amodia

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    Richard Roda witnessed seven people mauling someone near his restaurant. He identified three of the attackers, including Amodia, as regular customers. Roda did not immediately report it because he was threatened by the attackers, who stayed in the area for a few hours drinking beer. A few days later, Roda reported what he saw to the police. The court found Amodia and the others guilty of murder. Amodia argued that their non-flight from the crime scene proved their innocence, but the court ruled non-flight does not necessarily signify innocence and Roda's eyewitness testimony outweighed the defense's claims of denial and alibi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    PEOPLE vs.

    AMODIA
    G.R. No. 177356
    November 20, 2008

    FACTS:

    Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant, went out of the
    restaurant to invite customers but saw seven persons mauling someone. He noticed that three of
    the attackers, whom he later identified as accused-appellants Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were
    regular customers of their restaurant. Roda did not immediately report the incident because he
    was threatened by accused-appellants who were still hanging around the area. A few days later, ,
    upon the advice of a person from the La Loma Police Station, Roda went to Camp Karingal in
    Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The RTC found Amodia, Marino and Lo-oc guilty
    of the crime of Murder.The CA affirmed the trial court's decision.

    they claim that it was improbable that the assailants would hang around within the
    area of the crime to drink three rounds of beer instead of immediately fleeing.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the non-flight of the assailants signified innocence

    RULING: No.

    Untenable is accused-appellants' contention that non-flight of the assailants signified


    innocence. Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against the accused as
    having a tendency to establish the accused's guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be
    due to several factors. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation
    determinative of innocence. Thus, weighed against the positive testimony of the prosecution
    eyewitness, accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi lose ground.

    Also, delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily
    impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given. In this case,
    the prosecution eyewitness explained that he did not immediately report the incident to the police
    because the assailants threatened to hurt him. What made this threat appear so real was the fact
    that accused-appellants lingered within the vicinity of the crime for a couple of hours after the
    mauling incident. After the authorities had discovered the victim, however, he volunteered to
    relate what he had seen. It took him only two days before giving his statement. This delay, if it
    can be considered as one, is hardly unreasonable or unjustified under the circumstances.

    You might also like