This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| For sure, the procedural rule relied upon does not apply at all to this case. Indeed, clear it is from its very language that the disputable presumption of the existence of unlawful or criminal intent presupposes the commission of an unlawful act. Thus, intent to kill is presumed when the victim dies because the act of killing clearly constitutes an unlawful act. In People vs. Gemoya,[9] the Court held:The intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of death, unless the accused proves by convincing evidence that any of the justifying circumstances in Article 11 or any of the exempting circumstances in Article 12, both of the Revised Penal Code, is present. | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| It is a hornbook doctrine that findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons because of the trial court's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.[14] In the same vein, questions regarding the locus criminis, the distances and positions of the landmarks, and the credibility of the witnesses relative thereto, are best left to the trial court, especially when it had conducted an ocular inspection. No amount of textual description, recitation of measurements, and diagrams could even approximate the actual subjection of the crime scene to the trial judge's acute senses. | |||||