This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-10-09 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We also find that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[38] We have ruled that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep,[39] unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened.[40] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The courts below correctly appreciated the circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.[27] The post-mortem findings indicate that Francisco sustained a fatal wound on his back chest. The position of the fatal wound is more than clear indication that the victim was stabbed from behind leaving him in a defenseless state. | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi is likewise unconvincing. Accused-appellant was positively identified by eyewitnesses. She herself admitted that she confronted one of the eyewitnesses, Maniego, moments before she was seen attacking Maniego, Santiago and Sicor. It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[28] In accused-appellant's case, there is no corroborative evidence of her alibi or proof of physical impossibility of her being at the scene of the incident to shore up her defense. | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages to Guilbert's heirs, we affirm the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Medical and burial expenses were indisputably incurred by Guilbert's heirs but the exact amounts thereof were not duly proven. So in lieu of actual damages, we award Guilbert's heirs P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]emperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."[32] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The accused clearly failed to convincingly establish that he was in another place at the time of Ma. Angela's kidnapping. Both the RTC and the CA found the testimony of prosecution witnesses, Herminio and Alex, to be more credible than those of Cesista and Hombrebueno. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and having observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence. [34]As the accused has failed to show that the trial court misappreciated any of the facts before it, there is no reason to deviate from the established doctrine. | |||||