This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-11-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under these facts, we see no evidence indicating that the appellant and his co-accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself.[40] There was nothing in the record that shows that the three (3) assailants carefully considered the mode or method of attack to ensure the killing of the victim. While the intent to kill was patent, the manner of attack did not appear to have been deliberately adopted. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The lower courts dismissed the testimony of Garcia -- regardless of how clear, positive and straightforward it was -- solely on the ground that he was not a disinterested witness. True, he was an employee of respondent; relationship, however, will not by itself determine the true worth of one's testimony.[29] The essential test is whether such testimony is disencumbered, credible, and in accord with human experience.[30] It cannot easily be dismissed by the mere invocation of the witness' relationship with respondent. In sum, we have no reason to disagree with the CA's evaluation that, being credible, Garcia's direct testimony was sufficient to establish respondent's claim that petitioner had entered the premises on December 1, 1993. | |||||
|
2000-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Nitcha,[48] we held that:"To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous." (Underscoring ours) It was Antonio's sudden anger and heated passion which drove him to pull his gun and shoot Tuadles. Said passion, however, cannot co-exist with treachery. In passion, the offender loses his reason and control. In treachery, on the other hand, the means employed is adopted consciously and deliberately. One who, in the heat of passion, loses his reason and self-control, cannot consciously employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime.[49] Thus, the killing of Tuadles by appellant Antonio was not attended by treachery. | |||||