Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO BADON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172967 2007-12-19	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER AVILES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present at the inception of the attack. If the attack is continuous and treachery was present only at a subsequent stage and not at the inception of the attack, it cannot be considered.[16] Rather than being an expression of surprise at the presence of Aviles as held by the Court of Appeals, the shout "Apaya" or "Apay aya," when translated as "Bakit ba," connotes confusion as to why the person to whom it is spoken is acting the way he is acting. This implies the lapse of several moments between the commencement of the attack and Arenas' shouting.
	GR No. 133685-86 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. AMADO BAGNATE PER CURIAM
In accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[46] Considering the generic aggravating circumstances of disregard of age of the victim and dwelling, the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is in order.[47]
	GR No. 128890 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. EDDIE MENDOZA Y PASAG BELLOSILLO, J.
The trial court observed the demeanor of the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense, and believed the former whose testimonies were candid, straightforward and bore the earmarks of truth while characterizing the latter as preposterous and unbelievable.[16] In criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court[17] and the Court will respect these findings considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[18] Of course, the rule admits of certain exceptions: (a) when patent inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[19] But in this case, neither exception can be found, and the Court is not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes thereof.[20] We have carefully reviewed the records and found no reason to deviate from the conclusions drawn by the trial court; hence, they must prevail.
	GR No. 134505 2000-05-09	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO GO-OD NESTOR GO-OD GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The fact that the victim was able to grab one of the bolos after he had already been hit and used the same to stab one of his assailants does not negate the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime. The characteristic and unmistakable manifestation of treachery is the deliberate and unexpected attack on the victim without any warning and without giving him the opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack is continued, even if present at a subsequent stage it is not to be considered.[25] It indubitably appears from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Aladino Ygot stabbed Nestor Go-od after he himself had already been wounded by the attack which as we have already mentioned was so sudden and unexpected that it did not give Aladino Ygot an opportunity to offer an effective defense nor to repel the initial attack.
	GR No.126043 2000-04-19	PEOPLE v. MANUEL MAGAYAC BELLOSILLO, J.
Not even the fact that the victim was shot repeatedly on the back while he was kneeling on the ground with hands upraised and begging for his life be considered as treacherous. The subsequent firing was a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was wounded as no appreciable time intervened in-between the successive firing of the rifle.[24]
	GR No. 108381 2000-03-07	PEOPLE v. AMADEO I. ACAYA QUISUMBING, J.
When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[11] The rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[12] Neither exception can be found in this case. Moreover, the Court is not precluded from making its own assessment of the probative value of the testimony of the witnesses on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) thereof.[13] Based on our review of the TSNs, we find no reason to depart from the factual findings of the trial court.