This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2005-10-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this level, the procedural requirements of Section 17, Rule 119 on the need for the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge do not yet come into play. This is because, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the determination of who should be criminally charged in court is essentially an executive function, not a judicial one.[29] The prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion - the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors.[30] By virtue of the trial court having granted the prosecution's motion for reinvestigation, the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government.[31] Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus equipped with discretion -- wide and far reaching - regarding the disposition thereof. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[65] It may be appreciated even if there is no direct evidence to show an actual agreement to commit the crime, when the acts and attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime reflect a common design, thus making all the accused co-principals in the crime committed. It can be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances and may be inferred from the acts of all the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.[66] It is not even necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim, because once conspiracy is established, an act of one is the act of all.[67] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In a long line of cases, the Court has pronounced that the credibility of witnesses as assessed by the trial court will generally not be disturbed.[49] This is because the trial court enjoys the unique position of having observed the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied appellate courts.[50] As the Court fully explained in People vs. Lachica:[51] Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At all events, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to show that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must further demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof.[76] Appellant glaringly failed in this regard. For by his claim, he was at the time the crime was perpetrated at his residence which was only about 200 to 300 meters away from the locus criminis.[77] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In any event, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to show that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must further demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof.[39] Appellant glaringly failed in this regard. As correctly found by the trial court, the evidence shows that the residence of the accused at 47 Gladiola Street, Zone 8, Barangay Rizal, Makati City, where he claimed to be with his family when the crime was perpetrated is only about 300 meters away from the locus criminis at Blueberry Street, Aranay Village, Barangay Rizal, Makati City.[40] | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Given the factual milieu of the case, this Court is in accord with the trial court's finding that the killing of Basilio was attended by alevosia. This Court has held that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[31] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] As vividly narrated by Rufina and Christopher, the attack on Basilio was sudden. Basilio had no inkling of the impending attack. He was just nonchalantly walking along the road when accused-appellant and his cohort appeared from nowhere and suddenly shot him. Basilio had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack, nor was he in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression because he was unarmed. Moreover, he was fatally shot on the region of the head, at close range, as evidenced by the powder burns found around the victim's gunshot wounds. To ensure the success of their criminal design, accused-appellant and his cohort fired at the victim five times as shown by the five entrance wounds sustained by the victim in different parts of his body. Undoubtedly, the felons deliberately and consciously adopted the means to ensure their criminal purpose without risk to themselves. That the victim may have been shot from the front, as contended by accused-appellant, does not negate alevosia. The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from a victim who is unarmed, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[33] | |||||