This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Based on the established facts, Dulin and Batulan grappled for control of the weapon Batulan had initially wielded against Dulin, who divested Batulan of it and ran with it into the house of Danao, with Batulan in immediate pursuit. They continued to grapple for the weapon inside the house of Danao, and it was at that point when Dulin stabbed Batulan several times. Under the circumstances, treachery should not be appreciated in the killing of Batulan because the stabbing by Dulin did not take Batulan by surprise due to his having been sufficiently forewarned of Dulin’s impending assault,[32] and being thus afforded the opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or even to recover control of the weapon from Dulin. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[33] The mode of attack must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| And on the merits of the case, the Court holds that there was indeed a contract of loan between the petitioners and respondent. The Court agrees with the findings of fact of the MCTC and the RTC that a check was a sufficient evidence of a loan transaction. 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 the findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.[40] | |||||