This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At this point, we must stress that over and above Paroche's testimony, the eyewitness account of Blaquer can stand on its own. The testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction, especially where the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and has been delivered spontaneously, naturally, and in a straightforward manner.[35] Witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and it is not at all incredible or uncommon for a conviction to be based on the testimony of a single witness.[36] | |||||
|
2000-07-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In any event, the trial court grievously erred when it ruled the existence of abuse of superior strength in the case at bench. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, possessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous to the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.[35] There is no evidence in the case at bar to show that appellants Rolando Cardel and Arnold Calumpang took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. It should be pointed out that appellant Calumpang immediately fled from the scene of the crime after punching Noel Rioflorido, Jr., leaving behind appellant Cardel who stabbed the victim subsequently. | |||||