This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While petitioner avers that the testimony of Arnel Tanael is burdened with improbabilities and inconsistencies, after having owned the crime, however, the burden of proof is reversed and, therefore, he cannot simply protest that the evidence of the prosecution is weak. It then becomes incumbent upon petitioner to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing. Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence.[19] | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appellant can no longer rely on our ruling in these cases because in the recent case of People v. Aquino,[79] we held that qualifying circumstances need not be expressly stated as such to qualify the offense. It is enough that the same is stated in the information, whether it be as qualifying or generic aggravating. In the much recent case of People v. Paulino,[80] this Court, citing Aquino, held that:[T]he Court has repeatedly held, even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The court a quo correctly found the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the instant case. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. [19] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[20] | |||||