This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.[9] No standard form of behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.[10] Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their family;[11] while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives[12] or townmates.[13] And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.[14] | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[8] This assessment is even deemed conclusive and binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily, or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that if considered might affect the result of the case.[9] We cannot imagine how Vicente Dauba was able to give a consistent narrative of how the crime was perpetrated and how the bodies of the victims were disposed of if he did not see the actual incident himself. More than just supplying the authorities with the details regarding | |||||
|
2002-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against petitioner. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.[51] For treachery to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and Noel Bergante cannot be given credence. As we already stated, even the trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[53] | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We likewise find no merit in this argument. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, method, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[42] For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the following must be proved: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[43] | |||||