Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEO MACALIAG

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 175980 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Benny's assertion that Adriano was solely responsible for the murder of Jesus is likewise undeserving of consideration. Such a claim is common among conspirators in their veiled attempt to escape complicity. It is a desperate strategy to compensate for a weak defense. We are not readily influenced by such a proposition since its obvious motive is to distort the truth and frustrate the ends of justice.[55]
	GR No. 171328 2011-02-16	LYZAH SY FRANCO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In denying any criminal wrongdoing, petitioners blame their co-accused, Torres, whom they claim to be the owner of Final Access Marketing. The shifting of blame is common among conspirators in their attempt to escape liability. It is a desperate strategy to compensate for their weak defense. We are not readily influenced by such a proposition since its "obvious motive is to distort the truth and frustrate the ends of justice."[14]
	GR NO. 169083 2006-08-07	PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Absent any ill-motive on the part of Emily to falsely charge the appellant of rape, the presumption is that, she is telling the truth; hence, her testimony is entitled to full probative weight. It would run counter to the natural order of events and of human nature, and contrary to the presumption of good faith, for a prosecution witness to falsely testify if the appellant is truly innocent.[39]
	GR No. 133886 2001-09-05	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of the means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[37] This court has already held that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Where no particulars are shown as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in death of the deceased began and developed, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[38] (Emphasis ours)
	GR No. 144113 2001-06-28	EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner wonders why Marino Atienza looked out of the window instead of seeking cover when he heard the sound of gunfire. Such behavior, he says, is contrary to human experience and the instinct for self-preservation. We do not think so. As has been held, different people react differently to an unusual event. There is no typical response to a startling, strange, or frightful experience.[26] In one case,[27] this Court did not find it unusual for eyewitnesses to remain seated on their benches and not seek cover like the other people in the political rally in which a crime was committed. For the same reason, the Court also does not think it unnatural for Marino Atienza to be oblivious of what his companions inside the house, Elena and Rudy Cuna, did after they heard gunfire.
	GR No. 137045 2001-04-16	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO TUMAYAO MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, as held in People v. Piamonte,[31] the fact that accused-appellant threw the knife away, as in this case,[32] instead of surrendering the knife to the authorities and reporting the incident to them negates the claim of self-defense. In any event, this discussion is moot and academic because, as previously stated, accused-appellant Eduardo Tumayao died on May 24, 1997,[33] thus extinguishing his criminal and civil liability.[34] Second. Accused-appellant Leonilo Tumayao, on the other hand, invokes the defense of alibi. This defense requires proof (1) that accused-appellants were present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and (2) that it was the physical impossible for them to be present at the crime scene during its perpetration.[35] Accused-appellants failed to present proof of these requirements.
	GR No. 126168 2001-03-07	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO Y LORESTO DE LEON, JR., J.
Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[33] This Court has also previously held that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Where no particulars are shown as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the deceased began and developed, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[34] In the instant case, treachery cannot be appreciated considering that the only eyewitness to the actual stabbing, Benjamin Samudio, did not see the initial stage and particulars of the attack on the victim, Baldomero San Juan.
	GR No. 132392 2001-01-18	PEOPLE v. CESAR MARCOS Y MON 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.
	GR No. 127843 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. HERMAN D. BATO PARDO, J.
We find no error in the way the trial court gave more weight to the prosecution's evidence. The settled rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect.[39] The rule is such because it was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or the full or scant realization of their oaths.[40] Without any showing that the trial court overlooked material facts or gravely abused its discretion, we find no compelling reason to interfere with its assessment of the credibility of eyewitnesses.[41]