This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino.[15] Hence, the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardo's guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the RTC, like other trial courts, clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used was not indispensable considering that the finding of guilt was based on other evidence proving his commission of the crime.[16] | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Indeed, there is no reason why the victim's mother would fabricate a story to accuse an innocent person of such grave a crime. The natural interest of the witness, who is a relative of the victim in securing the convictions of the guilty would deter her from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[33] It is therefore highly unlikely for her to lie as to the identity of one of her son's assailants. | |||||
|
2002-03-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Treachery is the deliberate and unexpected attack on the victim without any warning and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.[11] Hence, for treachery to qualify the killing, two elements must concur, namely: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[12] | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Against the foregoing evidence of culpability, accused-appellant merely denies the charges and alleges that he could not molest the victim because he loved her. He also claims that the shanty where the crime was committed had already been demolished on the date of the supposed rape. Denial is an inherently weak defense,[13] which crumbles in the light of positive identification of accused-appellant.[14] It can easily be fabricated and to deserve acquittal, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.[15] Accused-appellant's negative assertions cannot prevail in the light of the affirmative declarations of the victim herself. | |||||