This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Appellant is mistaken. There is treachery when a victim is set upon by the accused without warning; when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim; or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant.[81] In order to sustain a finding of treachery, two conditions must be present, to wit: (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked not opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[82] | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact.[19] Self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by competent evidence but is extremely doubtful.[20] The defense failed to meet the required quantum of proof on the matter, hence, the trial court correctly discredited altogether appellant's self-defense theory. This Court cannot deviate from such finding and conclusion as, on the issue of credibility of witnesses, it accords the highest respect for the findings of the trial court as it is in a better position to decide the question. After all, the trial court heard the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor and deportment. Absent any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, its findings on credibility shall prevail.[21] | |||||