This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-06-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To prove the circumstance she must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if this be weak, it can not be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing.[28] | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Third: The location of the wound and its extent likewise proved appellant's intent to kill the victim. The autopsy report revealed that the victim sustained a punctured wound in the neck, a vital organ, which fatally lacerated her jugular vein causing massive hemorrhage. The extent of the physical injury inflicted on the deceased manifests appellant's intention to extinguish life.[18] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Basilia's testimony on the lack of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal expert who testified that the victim was first shot at the lateral side of the neck about two feet from his assailant.[25] We find the location of the first gunshot wound significant since it establishes the relative positions of appellant and victim. The autopsy findings show that appellant was not in front of the victim when the first shot was fired, but was behind him and towards the latter's side. These belie appellant's claim that he was face to face with the victim and grappling for possession of the gun when the victim was hit. The physical evidence in this case is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, which ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[26] | |||||