This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The right to be assisted by counsel is an indispensable component of due process in criminal prosecution.[27] As such, right to counsel is one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused.[28] A deprivation of the right to counsel strips the accused of an equality in arms resulting in the denial of a level playing field.[29] Simply put, an accused without counsel is essentially deprived of a fair hearing which is tantamount to a grave denial of due process.[30] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Serzo, Jr.[95] the Court also upheld the decision of the trial court finding the accused guilty of murder notwithstanding the failure of the accused to testify in his behalf finding that by his neglect or mischief he effectively waived said right. After a thorough review of the records and finding no error in the findings of the trial court, the Court held in said case that in a case of murder or homicide, it is enough that the death of the victim and the culpability of the person who caused such death are proven beyond reasonable doubt.[96] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Serzo, Jr.[95] the Court also upheld the decision of the trial court finding the accused guilty of murder notwithstanding the failure of the accused to testify in his behalf finding that by his neglect or mischief he effectively waived said right. After a thorough review of the records and finding no error in the findings of the trial court, the Court held in said case that in a case of murder or homicide, it is enough that the death of the victim and the culpability of the person who caused such death are proven beyond reasonable doubt.[96] | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. The contention that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claim that he was about to escape when the policemen found him does not affect his conviction of the crime charged. In the case of murder or homicide, it is enough that the death of the victim and the responsibility of the person who caused such death are proven beyond reasonable doubt.[30] The records show that the police had cause to believe that the accused-appellant was about to flee. According to the testimony of SPO2 Cimafranca,[31] accused-appellant appeared tense and was carrying a bag which contained clothing when he was found shortly after the shooting incident. Such disposition of accused-appellant plus the positive identification by Claros that he was her brother's assailant understandably led the police to think that he might flee to evade arrest. Credence should be given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are police officers and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[32] | |||||
|
2000-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 1.) employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself, much less, to retaliate; and 2.) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[14] Based on the overt act proven in this case, it was established that the appellants followed the victim out of the house of Jovito Barona. They suddenly ganged up on him and helped one another in inflicting fatal wounds and injuries. While holding the victim's hands behind his back, Felipe Ferrariz ordered Matias Sara to stab him. That stab rendered him all the more defenseless. Weakened by the stab wound, the victim became an easy target for the gunshot that ensued, and which cause him to fall to the ground. | |||||