This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| ASSUMING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING TREACHERY AS PURPOSELY EMPLOYED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO COMMIT THE ALLEGED CRIME IN THE INFORMATION. The issue in this case boils down to a question of credibility and relative weight of evidence adduced by the parties with respect to the surrounding circumstances of the killing. When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the results of the case.[20] The underlying reason for this principle has been explained as follows:Having the opportunity to observe them, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| indications they were on friendly terms; as in fact they were even kumpadres. No one knew nor expected that when the accused momentarily excused himself, it was for the purpose of looking for a knife, and without any warning, stabbing the victim who was sleeping. There is treachery when the attack is upon an unconscious victim who could not have put up any defense whatsoever,[14] or a person who was dead drunk and sleeping on a bench and had no chance to defend himself.[15] Clearly, the | |||||