This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not clearly established since none of the witnesses saw how the shooting was started. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[56] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[57] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present 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.[20] It must be borne in mind that qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty imposed must be based on positive or conclusive proof, not mere suppositions or speculations,[21] and must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself.[22] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[16] Here, the trial court found the account of the incident proffered by the lone prosecution eyewitness Isabel Medino to be positive, sincere and candid.[17] Moreover, it is a settled doctrine that the positive identification of an eyewitness, who has been shown to have no ill motive to testify falsely against the appellant, prevails over the bare denials of the latter.[18] | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| "fn">[35] In the case at bar, there was neither a description of how the attack was commenced whether it was sudden, unexpected and whether the victim was caught totally unaware nor has there been a showing that the method of execution in the commission of the crime was consciously or deliberately adopted by the malefactor. To reiterate, the existence of alevosia must be based on positive or conclusive proof, not mere suppositions or speculations,[36] and must be proved as clearly and as convincingly as the killing itself.[37] Any doubt as to the | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| testimony[27] and the Autopsy Report.[28] A detailed testimony acquires greater weight and credibility when confirmed by autopsy findings.[29] In addition, the usually stressful condition of the witnesses can serve as a catalyst for their recollections.[30] Third, there is no evidence to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motive and, thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[31] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the present case, there is no doubt that Batislaong's testimony positively identified appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. First, she had a clear view of the stabbing incident, as she was standing just four (4) meters from the victim. Moreover, the dance hall was sufficiently illuminated. As a witness to a violent incident, she strove to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which it was committed.[22] Second, the medicolegal's testimony[23] and Medical Report[24] corroborated her recollection of the specific details of the crime -- the stabbing of the victim on the chest several times, the use of a knife, and the position of the assailant. A detailed testimony acquires greater weight and credibility when confirmed by autopsy findings.[25] | |||||
|
2001-11-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is no treachery in this case. Treachery is considered present when: (1) there is employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the culprit.[53] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[54] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[55] These are absent in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With regard to alevosia, 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.[34] Treachery is considered present when: (1) there is employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the culprit.[35] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[36] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[37] | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The award of moral damages in murder cases is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in death.[84] It is true that moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs or to penalize the convict, but to obviate the spiritual sufferings of the heirs.[85] Considering, however, the extraordinary circumstances in the case at bar, more particularly the unusual grief and outrage suffered by her bereaved family as a result of the brutal and indecent mutilation and disposal of Elsa's body, the moral damages to be awarded to them should be more than the normal amount dictated by jurisprudence. However, the amount of P3,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court as moral damages is rather excessive. The reasonable amount is P1,000,000.00 considering the immense sorrow and shock suffered by Elsa's heirs. | |||||