This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[16] The defense of denial, like alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[17] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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 make. Thus, two conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[31] | |||||
|
2003-09-29 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| There was also a paucity of proof to show that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes. For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as that of the killing, of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[100] Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim.[101] No such evidence was presented to prove the presence of this circumstance. | |||||