This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anent the second assigned error, the appellate and trial courts correctly held that there is no homicide since there was the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is present when the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressors which is selected or taken advantage of by them in the commission of the crime.[23] Such aggravating circumstance was perpetrated by Ruperto and his two sons in chasing the victim with bolos. The unarmed victim did not stand a chance against these three men. | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement (Section 13, Rule 132, Rules of Court): not that a previous testimony is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same is false.[39] (Underscoring supplied) The Court of Appeals credited too the testimony of Jacobo Malicdem, a bookkeeper of Solidbank against which the P800,000.00 KLII check payable to Loreta was drawn, that KLII did not have the said amount in the bank as of January and February 1988. [40] Gratuitously assuming that to have been the case, it is irrelevant given the factual finding of the trial court that the check was converted to cash by the drawer-KLII itself,[41] which cash was received by Loreta as proven by her signature on the check and on the discount statement acknowledging receipt thereof. [42] | |||||