This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted.[37] Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[38] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The establishment of the crimes of which the accused were charged is not weakened by the alleged inconsistencies cited by accused-appellants. The cited inconsistencies pertain to minor details. Inconsistencies referring to minor details strengthen rather than weaken the witness' credibility for they give the impression of rehearsed testimony.[20] As a matter of fact, discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters - not to the central fact of the crime - do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential culpability of witnesses' declarations as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[21] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not the accused acted in self-defense is undoubtedly a question of fact, and it is well entrenched in jurisprudence that findings of fact of the trial court command great weight and respect unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence.[18] In the present case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the trial court, as modified by the CA. In debunking his claim, we quote with approval the ruling of the CA. | |||||