This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The strategic position of accused-appellant and his companions afforded them a vantage point in launching a successful ambush. The location was obviously chosen to deprive Salvador of any opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the guns fired in succession, execution-style, directed to the head, negated any chance of Salvador's survival insuring the killing without risk to themselves.[28] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.[29] When the victim was killed, he was walking with his companions. There is no showing that he or his companions were armed or expecting trouble along the road. The four attackers were armed with long firearms. The gunmen aimed for the head, insuring that the wounds sustained would be fatal. The attack from behind was deliberate, sudden, unexpected. All these indicate that the assailants employed means and methods which tended directly and especially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the offended party might have made. Clearly, the killing was attended by treachery, which qualifies said killing to murder. | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The trial court believed Catalan. Settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness is accorded great respect by appellate courts, unless the evaluation is tainted with arbitrariness, or the trial court overlooked material facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.[5] Catalan positively identified appellant. When he witnessed the incident, he was only 6 or 7 meters away. He had no reason to falsely testify against appellant. When there is no evidence to indicate that the witness against the accused has been actuated by improper motive and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony given should be accorded full faith and credit.[6] Such testimony if credible and positive is sufficient to support a conviction.[7] | |||||
|
2000-09-13 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In concluding that accused is guilty of murder although the evidence is hearsay. We find the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Jimmy Dagami beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction.[8] Ignacio's brother, Paquito, positively identified accused-appellant as the one who stabbed Ignacio Glorioso. Paquito could not have been mistaken as to the identity of accused-appellant since he was only one meter away from his brother and the place was well lighted by a nearby post. | |||||