This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-08-28 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Our review of the evidence supports the trial court's finding of treachery. For treachery to be appreciated, two elements must concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[39] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| It is well settled that the credibility of the witnesses is best left to the determination of the trial court because the latter is in a more advantageous position to determine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. As a general rule, appellate courts accord the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses with great respect and finality in the absence of any indication that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which if considered would alter the result of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| While we adhere to the expanded notion of public use, the passage of R.A. No. 7279, the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992" introduced a limitation on the size of the land sought to be expropriated for socialized housing. The law expressly exempted "small property owners" from expropriation of their land for urban land reform. R.A. No. 7279 originated as Senate Bill No. 234 authored by Senator Joey Lina[23] and House Bill No. 34310. Senate Bill No. 234 then provided that one of those lands not covered by the urban land reform and housing program was "land actually used by small property owners within the just and equitable retention limit as provided under this Act."[24] "Small property owners" were defined in Senate Bill No. 234 as:"4. Small Property Owners--are those whose rights are protected under Section 9, Article XIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, who own small parcels of land within the fair and just retention limit provided under this Act and which are adequate to meet the reasonable needs of the small property owner's family and their means of livelihood."[25] The exemption from expropriation of lands of small-property owners was never questioned on the Senate floor.[26] This exemption, although with a modified definition, was actually retained in the consolidation of Senate Bill No. 234 and House Bill No. 34310 which became R.A. No. 7279.[27] | |||||