This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We find the findings of fact of the trial court to be in accord with the evidence on record. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence.[27] In the case at bar, we have no reason to depart from this principle and to apply the exception. The testimonies of Roque Ogrimen and Nonilio Marfil clearly establish the guilt of appellant as the assailant who took two shotguns from the victim. On top of such damning evidence, no evidence was adduced by the defense because appellant escaped detention, thus waiving his right to do so. Flight is a strong indication of guilt when it is done to escape from the authorities or to escape prosecution.[28] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A review of the record would reveal that there was no evident premeditation. There is evident premeditation when the following are shown: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[54] Evident premeditation indicates deliberate planning and preparation. Nowhere in the record is it shown when and how appellants planned and prepared to kill the victim. | |||||
|
2001-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| While appellant claims self-defense, we find that the requisites therefor have not been established. That the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression[30] is unproved. The claim of appellant that Edmundo had suddenly pulled out a knife is not corroborated. That appellant managed to wrestle away from the victim the knife he used to stab Edmundo is patently self-serving. The ownership of the "Rambo" knife was not established at all. What has been established is that appellant followed the victim outside the place of the wake, after the latter decided to go home. Appellant persisted and confronted the victim even after witness Rolando Lovinaria had pleaded for appellant's forgiveness and embraced appellant to prevent him from pursuing further the victim. Appellant's action showed his own belligerence. Yet it is axiomatic that he who claims self-defense bears the burden of proving that the killing was preceded by unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[31] Here we find, instead, appellant's action highly bellicose. While appellant insists that he stabbed the victim only once, not counting his first swinging attack of which he was not certain whether he had hit the victim. But according to the results of the autopsy performed by Dr. Somera, the victim's body bore at least four wounds aside from contusions and abrasions on the face. Also, according to Dr. Somera's testimony, several of the victim's wounds were inflicted from behind. We are, therefore, unable to accept appellant's plea of self-defense for utter lack of merit. | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The number of wounds (four (4) stabbed wounds and two (2) incised wounds) inflicted on the victim, Baldomero San Juan, contradicted accused-appellant Antonio L. Samudio's allegation of self-defense. For it has been held that the location and presence of several wounds on the body of the victim is physical evidence that eloquently refutes accused's allegation of self-defense.[32] | |||||