This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| When there is conspiracy, all those who participated in the commission of the offense are liable as principals, regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all.[180] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Between the categorical identification of the accused by a prosecution witness and the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime, greater weight is always given to the former.[15] Another reason why appellant's version of the killing is hard to believe is that this was only disclosed during the trial. If indeed the culprit of the crime was Rodolfo Boncales and not him, he would have divulged such information to the proper authorities right after the incident. For sure, its immediate disclosure would have been the normal and the natural reaction of an innocent person mistakenly suspected of a killing. Appellant's unexplainable silence in revealing his version of the incident, is quite indicative that such story is only a last-ditch attempt to exonerate himself by concocting a story that would explain his presence in the scene of the crime when the offense was committed. Moreover, it is also worthy to note that despite his clear view of the incident, prosecution witness Michael Lauchangco did not see any other person within the store premises, which refutes the presence of Rodolfo Boncales thereat as alleged by the appellant. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The prosecution is burdened to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the testimony of a lone witness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. While the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatest number. Conviction of the accused may still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness.[27] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Further, we agree with the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the offenses. The victim, Leonito Doliente, was sitting on the beach and conversing with his sweetheart, Lucenda Micutuan, when appellant suddenly appeared from behind and clubbed both of them with a piece of coconut lumber. This caused Leonito's death from an intracranial hemorrhage, secondary to head contusion on the occipital region.[22] Lucenda had to be hospitalized for the treatment of her injuries.[23] No prior conversation took place between the assailant and his victims. Unarmed and unaware of any impending danger, Leonito could not have defended himself against the attack from his back. The means employed by the appellant ensured the execution of his nefarious designs upon the victims without any risk to himself whatsoever from any defense which the victim might have made.[24] Treachery patently attended the commission of Doliente's killing and the attempt on Lucenda's life. | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure the execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[17] We agree with appellant that nowhere in the assailed judgment is it shown how the trial court arrived at its conclusion that the killing of Delara was attended by treachery. In convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, the trial court gave great weight to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Tomas Baniquid. The latter testified, however, that he only peeped through the window some ten (10) minutes after the gunshots had ceased and after hearing a commotion outside his house. He saw the three assailants, appellant included, ganging up on the victim who was already lying on the ground, but nonetheless doing his best to fend off the attack. Clearly, when Baniquid looked outside, the tumult was already well in progress. There is absolutely no showing from his testimony how the attack commenced; no indicia whether the attack was so sudden and unexpected that it afforded the victim no chance to defend himself. In the absence of this information, treachery cannot be established from the circumstances. Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as clearly as the killing itself.[18] Where the attack was not treacherous, the number of aggressors would constitute abuse of superior strength.[19] Abuse of superior strength, therefore, qualifies the killing as murder.[20] | |||||
|
2001-01-18 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The two conditions before treachery may be considered a qualifying circumstance are: (a) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim; and (b) the deliberate adoption by the offender of such means, methods, or manner of execution.[3] It is well-established that treachery, to be considered a qualifying circumstance, must be proven as clearly and indubitably as the crime itself, and it may not be simply deduced from presumption.[4] In the case at bar, prosecution witness Fernando Marcos gave an eyewitness account of how appellant attacked the victim. He testified that appellant, armed with a bolo, suddenly attacked the victim from behind and while the latter was in a stooping position, thereby depriving the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim a chance to repel or offer any defense of his person. And when the victim fell to the ground, accused hacked him again guaranteeing that the victim would not survive the attack. This undoubtedly constitutes treachery for the means employed by the accused ensured the execution of his nefarious design upon the victim without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might have made.[5] The aggravating circumstance of treachery qualifies the crime to murder. | |||||