This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Based on the established facts, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Arnulfo Inocencio was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when one employs means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime without risk to oneself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[26] The victim was then unarmed and oblivious to the possibility of a deadly attack as he was even having fun with his friends and appellant. There was no altercation or confrontation that preceded the attack. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack even failed to forewarn or arouse any alarm from the victim's drinking companions. They did not suspect that anything untoward would happen. Indeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim.[27] Moreover, although the victim and his assailant were face to face at the time the stabbing was made, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare for his defense, treachery should be taken into account.[28] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As regards appellant's pecuniary liabilities, we affirm the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, consistent with current jurisprudence,[86] and P30,000 as moral damages. However, the award of exemplary damages is deleted because of the absence of any aggravating circumstance.[87] | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the evidence unerringly supports petitioner's conviction. An eyewitness whose testimony was clear and unshaken positively identified him. The witness Judy Rom saw petitioner and his brother Ferdinand hit the head of the victim and another brother Aplonieto stabbed him in the stomach.[10] The testimony was direct and categorical. Any perceived inconsistencies and contradictions were on minor and irrelevant details that do not affect credibility.[11] We agree with the trial court that the testimony was credible and sufficed to convict the accused, corroborated by the physical evidence found on the body of the victim per necropsy report. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Whether or not the instrument used in the killing was an ice pick is immaterial. What is important is that both doctors who examined Ariel testified that the fatal wound was caused by a sharp-pointed and sharp-edged object. Dr. Tierra's opinion as to the position of the victim and his assailant does not rule out the possibility that Ariel was actually seated when he was attacked, considering the medico-legal finding that the stab wound penetrated his thoracic cavity and right hemi-diaphragm, lacerating the right lobe of his liver. It is noteworthy that Dr. Audie Czar Cipriano of the Pasay City General Hospital testified that he found a wound on the right side of Ariel's chest. The direction of the wound signifies that the weapon was thrust upward from the lower right side of Ariel's back, thus lacerating the right lobe of his liver and even reaching the victim's chest. The alleged inconsistencies are trivial and do not in any way affect the disposition of the case. Instead of undermining the credibility of Daniel, they show that he was an unrehearsed witness.[20] | |||||