This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-09-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the courts below based their finding of evident premeditation on the entries in the Dispatch Logbook, the alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs, as well as the telephone call made by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident. To our mind, however, these circumstances do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill. At most, these circumstances are indicative only of conspiracy among the accused. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[47] "[I]t must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt."[48] Notably, even the OSG admitted that the lapse of time from the moment the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The trial court was, therefore, correct in finding that Eduardo killed Nelson. However, we cannot affirm the trial court's finding that treachery attended the killing. 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 to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[21] Note that Henry did not witness the commencement of the attack against the victim. We have held that for treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[22] Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Moreover, Escote failed to offer adequate proof that the prosecution witnesses held a grudge against him or that they had a score to settle with him so as to give them motive to falsely testify against him. Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[15] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [40] People v. Gerardo Latupan y Sibal @ Jerry, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, 28 June 2001, citing People v. Piamonte, 303 SCRA 577, 588 [1999] . | |||||