This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the absence of conclusive proof on the manner in which the aggression against Nicolas was commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated as a modifying circumstance.[43] It bears stressing that treachery cannot be presumed. It must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.[44] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of witnesses and probative weight thereof and its conclusions culled from said findings are accorded by this Court great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range, the conduct, deportment and demeanor of the witnesses as they testify before the trial court.[12] However, this principle does not apply if the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[13] The exception obtains in this case. | |||||
|
2003-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.[40] Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable.[41] If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.[42] | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. xxx xxx xxx By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding or a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. The trial court, however, incorrectly stated that the killing was also attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Absent any particulars on the manner in which the aggression was commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder.[76] Treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.[77] Nevertheless, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of explosion, which was alleged in the Information, is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder. | |||||