This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2005-07-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [37] People v. Zamora, 343 Phil. 574, 590 (1997). | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. In evaluating the evidence, the trial court does not weigh the defense witnesses' testimonies by themselves. The trial court compares the testimonies from both sides. It then decides which testimonies have more weight. Absent any cogent reason to disturb its evaluation, we must respect the trial court's evaluation. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, since it has the opportunity to hear them personally, observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[16] After reviewing the transcript of stenographic notes in their entirety, we hold that the trial court committed no error when it chose to rely on the prosecution witnesses rather than on the defense witnesses. Appellant even failed to ascribe any ill-motive to the victim's wife for implicating appellant. The trial court correctly gave more weight to the positive testimony of an eyewitness to the crime rather than to the alibi of the accused.[17] Moreover, for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate that he was so far away from the scene of the crime that it was physically impossible for him to be present there at the time of its commission.[18] While appellant denied he was at the scene of the crime on the night of its commission, by his own admission he placed himself within a reasonably near area Barangay Malamig. Barangay Bonga Menor, the place where the crime took place, is only four kilometers away from where appellant claimed he was. One can cover the distance in an hour's walk considering that both barangays are located within the town of Bustos, a relatively small town in the province of Bulacan.[19] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| omission on the part of the prosecutor who conducted the direct examination. It must be emphasized that a response to a question is not to be isolated in relation to other queries and answers thereto.[61] The rule is that testimonies must be taken in their entirety.[62] Thus, during the cross-examination of Gale by counsel for Mamarion on July 24, 1997, the Court finds that Gale elucidated on the participation of appellant Maclang, viz.: ATTY. ROMERO: Q You testified here that while in Bacolod City, there was an occasion that you ate breakfast at the duplex house at Capitol Heights, wherein Rolando Maclang, during that breakfast suggested that the kidnapping of Roberta Cokin will be in Bacolod City? A Yes, sir. ATTY. ROMERO: Q And during that meeting, what Major Maclang had only told you group that the kidnapping will be in Bacolod City, and that is all? COURT: Only "said". Maclang said. WITNESS: A Yes, sir. ATTY. ROMERO: Q And that was all that Maclang said in that meeting? A There were many other things. x x x x x x x x x ATTY. ROMERO: Q Now, in Iloilo City, what was told to you by Ronal Porquez was that, "We will kidnap a certain businesswoman in Bacolod City." And while in Bacolod, it was Rolando Maclang who finally decided that the kidnapping will be held in Bacolod City. That is your testimony here in court, is that correct? x x x x x x x x x WITNESS: A Yes, sir. x x x x x x x x x COURT: Q Porquez in that meeting in Iloilo never mentioned Rolando Maclang and to be the person who will meet you here in Bacolod City? Is that correct or not? A Yes, he has mentioned that. ATTY. ROMERO: Q What was the statement about Rolando Maclang made by Roland Porquez? WITNESS: A That here in Bacolod, everything will be taken cared of by Major Maclang.[63] This is further reinforced when Gale testified about the participation of appellants Maclang and Harisco on December 17, 1997, to wit: | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On this score, we find that this qualifying circumstance was specifically alleged in the information. We also find that the trial court correctly appreciated this circumstance. 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 its execution without risk to himself arising from defense which the offended party might make.[22] For treachery to be considered a qualifying circumstance, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to insure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (b) the said means, method or manner was deliberately adopted.[23] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[24] This was how Luceñara was attacked and killed. He was shot at the back of his head to insure that the killing was consummated without any risk to appellant, and again on Luceñara's belly after he fell down. The killing was also totally unexpected since the victim was ambushed on his way home in the middle of the night. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As found by the trial court, the killing of Dioscoro Oasnon was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. We are in agreement. 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 its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[32] The attack was deliberate and without warning - done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[33] As told by Rodrigo Oronan on the witness stand, the stabbing spree was sudden and unexpected. The victim had no inkling they were going to be attacked. They were on their way to the house of a friend and only stopped by to purchase some cigarettes.[34] That the attack was done swiftly and calculatingly can be inferred from the fact that it took more or less just two minutes from the time Ruben and Anthony stood up to attack Dioscoro, to the time Vicente saw Dioscoro already fallen.[35] Likewise, the nature and availability of weapons used in the attack also indicate that the perpetrators planned and prepared for it. Said the trial court in its decision of conviction, which deserves our concurrence: Finally, the offense charged is properly that of Murder qualified by treachery since the deceased was unarmed, and was in no position to ward off or repel the sudden, concerted and simultaneous attack against him by the three accused, with one hacking and stabbing and the others striking with steel bars or crowbars. Again the various wounds inflicted on the deceased bear mute testimony aforesaid to the suddenness, severity and ferocity of the attack, thus affording them to insure the killing of Oasnon without any risk arising from any defense he might make.[36] | |||||