This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-30 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The trial court was, therefore, correct in finding that Eduardo killed Nelson. However, we cannot affirm the trial court's finding that treachery attended the killing. 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 to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: (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.[21] Note that Henry did not witness the commencement of the attack against the victim. We have held that for treachery to be considered, 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, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[22] Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23] | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| evident and indicative of deliberate planning.[54] Even assuming that Sixto had intended to commit the crime, no convincing evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove when and how he and Amado had concocted the plan to kill, or clung to their determination to kill, the victim.[55] Neither does it appear that their decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempts.[56] Without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences will not suffice.[57] Hence, because the prosecution failed to establish the presence of all the elements of evident premeditation, it cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing as murder.[58] Thus, appellants can be convicted of homicide only,[59] for | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| We thus sustain the trial court's finding that the crime committed by JOVENCIO is murder because of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. 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 any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[20] For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: (1) the means of execution were employed to give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[21] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The conviction of the Enfectanas was primarily based on the testimonial accounts of Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino which was found by the trial court to be more credible than the version of the appellants. It is doctrinally settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the issue, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[20] Unfortunately for appellants, none of these exceptions is present in this case. | |||||