Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VS.BEN AQUINO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 143817 2003-10-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR PER CURIAM
For treachery to be appreciated, the offender must have employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[33] Two elements must concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[34]
	GR No. 134604 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO HUGO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The presumption of innocence enjoyed by Lorenzo and Rudy was not overcome by the prosecution, which has the burden to prove that they conspired with Ernesto in killing Remegio. Jurisprudence is replete that conspiracy must be proved as clearly as the commission of the offense itself.[34]
	GR Nos. 116224-27 2003-03-28	PEOPLE v. DONATO CARAIG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
We also agree with the OSG and the trial court on the finding of treachery. There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[40] Two elements must therefore concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and the (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[41]
	GR No. 148825 2002-12-27	PEOPLE v. SUSAN CANTON DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[30] There being a disparity in the factual milieu of Katz v. U.S. and the instant case, we cannot apply to this case the ruling in Katz. IV. The appellant, having been caught flagrante delicto, was lawfully arrested without a warrant.
	GR No. 137610-11 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ PUNO, J.
In upholding the decision of the trial court, we adhere to the well-settled rule that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to assess their capacity for truth.[21] While accused's arguments based on the witnesses' affidavits speculate on what could have actually happened, the prosecution witnesses testified on what actually happened, i.e., that they saw the accused Castillo as one of the four men who fired at them. We have ruled that affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations. Affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the affiants have in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiants simply sign them after the same have been read to him.[22] The accused Castillo's argument that he was not ably identified to have been one of the assailants as even the police blotter entry regarding the incident failed to mention him deserves scant consideration. We have ruled that police blotter entries should not always be given due significance or probative value for they do not constitute conclusive proof of the identities of suspected assailants.[23]