This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Treachery was also duly proven. The deadly and successive actions of the petitioners did not allow the victim any opportunity to defend himself. The victim was innocently taking a bath totally unaware of the planned attack against him. Or while he may have realized a possible danger to his person, the attack was executed in such a manner as to make defense, not to say counter attack, impossible. The suddenness of the assault, without the slightest provocation from him who was unarmed and with nary an opportunity to repel the aggression or defend himself, ineluctably qualified the crime with alevosia.[26] | |||||
|
2002-01-24 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants' quibbling over inconsequential matters should not be countenanced. It is of common knowledge that the initial reluctance and vacillation of a witness to volunteer information is more telling of his fear of being embroiled in a criminal investigation and expose himself and his family to reprisal than an intent to suppress the truth or muddle an investigation. Delay in reporting the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, especially where such witness gives a sufficient explanation. For the Court to unreasonably discredit a witness' account for the reason that it was delayed is to permanently seal the lips of reluctant and timorous witnesses.[12] Despite the searing examination by the defense, Abe satisfactorily explained himself when he said-[13] | |||||
|
2000-12-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| First. The houses of the victims were adequately lighted by kerosene lamps when the robbers entered and went about their looting spree. In People v. Pallarco[25] this Court clarified this modifying circumstance thus - | |||||