This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| To establish treachery, the following must be proven: 1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and 2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[66] It is also the running case law that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven.[67] Such attack must be sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, who is thus deprived of any real chance for self-defense, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[68] | |||||
|
2002-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court has recognized that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. This is especially true with young witnesses who could be overwhelmed by the atmosphere of the courtroom. Hence, there is more reason to accord them an ample space for inaccuracy.[9] So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies. When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim.[10] | |||||