This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Another observation of the Court which confirms the presence of treachery is the fact that Barangay Captain found difficulty in removing the itak-itakan from the accused as it was tied with the sleeve of his jacket wrapped around his hand and which the Court sees also as the reason why Barangay Kagawad Carsula did not notice the weapon held by the accused when he suddenly appeared before them and attacked the victim. Without any visible weapon in his hand when he suddenly appeared, the victim failed to undertake any move to defend himself.[11] The harshness of appellant's acts indicate a calculated pursuit of decision to kill, thus suggesting treachery.[12] More importantly, appellant did not sustain any wound, thus indicating that the suddenness of his attack on Napeñas ensured his safety from retaliatory attack from the latter. | |||||
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[40] Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.[41] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, a witness' delay in reporting what she knew about a crime does not render her testimony false or incredible, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case.[22] In this case, Basilia had adequately explained her reason for not immediately revealing what she knew about the incident. According to her, she was advised by the police to divulge what she knew only in court.[23] No improper motive on the part of Basilia to falsely testify against him was shown by appellant. Though Basilia is the victim's sister, it was not proved she was biased. It is settled that the relationship of a witness to the victim does not of itself impair the credibility of the witness.[24] | |||||