This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution of which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[14] | |||||
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Primarily, it has been jurisprudentially acknowledged that when the issues revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[52] In this case, it is notable that the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, according credence and great weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Settled is the rule that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court,[53] unless the trial court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and significance which if considered would have altered the result of the case.[54] None of these circumstances is attendant in this case. This Court, thus, finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings arrived at by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2010-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. As narrated by Agnes, she could not have been aware that she would be attacked by appellant. In the darkness of the night while she just finished relieving herself and still trying to get up, she was shot by appellant in the head with a gun. There was no opportunity for her to defend herself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation, shot her as she was about to get up. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.[43] | |||||