This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-03-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without any risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the victim's part.[54] While mere suddenness of attack does not automatically mean treachery,[55] in these cases the narration of events before and during the commission of the attacks clearly indicate the presence of treachery. Appellants were allowed inside the house of the couple. They were even given supper after which the elderly couple went upstairs to their bedroom. Appellants remained downstairs and continued watching television. As the OSG correctly points out, the victims in extending their hospitality to their tenants, had neither hint nor suspicion of the fate that Mario had in store for them. When Mario lured Magin to the phone, the latter was unaware he would be attacked. | |||||
|
2001-10-10 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The rule is that conviction must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.[50] | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Stated differently, the foregoing circumstance is a minor inconsistency that can not override the said prosecution witness' positive identification of accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Although there may be inconsistencies in the foregoing details of Rebecca Mayo's testimony, the same do not impair her credibility as a witness. Minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony.[6] | |||||