This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, the Court observes that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conviction of petitioners for frustrated homicide. The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist.[21] These elements were proved during trial. First, direct and positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that Villostas sustained seven stab wounds on vital parts of his body caused by a pointed sharp object. Plainly, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by him demonstrate petitioners' intent to kill. Next, the injuries suffered by Villostas were all fatal. Particularly critical were the 5-centimeter wound below his left armpit, the 3.5-centimeter wound on the mid-part of his left chest which required inserting a tube thereon to drain blood so as not to impede his breathing, and the 5-centimeter stab wound on the right side of his abdomen which also injured his liver.[22] As testified to by Dr. Pascual, Villostas would have succumbed to death due to the said injuries if not for the timely medical attention. Finally, no qualifying circumstance for murder was alleged in the Information to have attended the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The crime of frustrated homicide is committed when: (1) an "accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present."[26] | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded utmost respect since trial courts have first hand account on the witnesses' manner of testifying in court and their demeanor during trial.[28] The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility. Moreover in the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, and especially when the findings of the judge have been affirmed by the CA as in this case, the findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed.[29] Besides, even assuming that Anthony and Gina were indeed impelled by improper motive, appellants failed to impeach Ryan, an eyewitness to the incident who positively identified them as the assailants. As observed by the CA: While the appellants question the credibility of the prosecution witness Anthony Ramos, who allegedly had ill motive in testifying against them because appellant Marissa had filed charges against him for cutting the narra tree in front of their house, they failed to impute similar motive on the part of Ryan (Roquero) who also witnessed the incident. x x x [30] | |||||