This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's gratuitous assertion of being unconscious has very little to commend itself. His position places him on much too convenient ground to ward off any and all accusations against him without so much of an explanation; it is plain denial, pure and simple. We cannot accept this stance. In People v. Gaspar,[30] we rejected the convenient excuse of "losing consciousness" as a defense. Therein, we held:RODRIGO postulates that he was unconscious, hence unaware of the circumstances that led to Jimmy's demise. In effect, he denies his presence at the scene of the crime and his participation thereof. His evidentiary bases include the attestations of (1) three defense witnesses who claimed to have seen Jimmy struck RODRIGO with a bolo from behind and (2) six other defense witnesses who like the first three witnesses beheld RODRIGO lying on the ground face down. The trial court however, did not believe that RODRIGO was unconscious. So do we. But the trial court failed to categorically make a factual finding that Jimmy hacked RODRIGO, and yet paradoxically, referred to said episode as a mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense. This Court however, oppugns the veracity of this version of the defense. | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [76] People v. Gaspar, 376 Phil. 762, 785 (1999). | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed in this regard that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for evidence is weighed not counted.[33] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to convict the appellant even in a murder charge[34] for truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[35] Stated differently, truth "[i]s established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies,[36] for in determining the value and credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.[37] | |||||
|
2000-08-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| People v. Gaspar, et a1.,[68] the Court found that apart from treachery, dwelling also attended the killing of the victim. Despite this finding and the absence of any mitigating circumstance, the Court nonetheless did not appreciate dwelling and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not the greater penalty of death.[69] Hence, in the case at bar, considering that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not alleged in the information, we cannot appreciate it and raise the penalty imposed upon Raul Gallego from reclusion perpetua to death. Anent the damages awarded to the heirs of the victim, there is sufficient evidence to warrant the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[70] Actual damages cannot, however, be awarded for lack of evidence to support the prosecution's claim. | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| DANNY claimed that when Ricky boxed EDDIE, he ran away because his pregnant wife did not want him to get into trouble. We cannot believe that DANNY would abandon his brother at the moment the latter was allegedly assaulted by a stranger. In a recent case, we explained that it is natural for brothers to "close in fraternal ranks" in mauling the victim since such conduct is more characteristic of the closeness among Filipino siblings.[40] | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Treachery, likewise, attended the killing of the two (2) victims. There is treachery when the offender commits the crime employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[85] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be shown that: 1.] the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and 2.] the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[86] | |||||