This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "For [treachery] to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: a) 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 b) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted."[39] "The circumstances surrounding the [killing] must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself."[40] Treachery cannot be presumed. | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Santiago's testimony was consistent and clear. Accused-appellants showed no reason or bias for Santiago to pinpoint them as the perpetrators of the crime, no motive for the lone eyewitness to falsely accuse them. Thus, We adhere to the established rule that in the absence of evidence showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witness to perjure himself or herself, We can conclude that no improper motive exists, and his or her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[29] We see no reason to deviate from the RTC's appreciation of said testimony and the conclusions drawn from it. | |||||