This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-01-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Another telling sign of de Jesus' guilt is his flight from the scene. Had events occurred as per his version, he should have been ready to face the consequences of his action, and let the truth come out. There was no reported bad blood between him and the victim, no motive for him to kill Armando. The question that must be asked is, why then was he so afraid, that he went into hiding for eight years, for what he claims is a justified killing? Self-defense is not credible in the face of the flight of the accused from the crime scene and his or her failure to inform the authorities about the incident.[35] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Information charged appellant Ranin with Murder under Article 248,[10]paragraphs (1) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code. To be liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him; (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.[11] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with both the defense and the prosecution that the present petition dwells basically on the issue of credibility of witnesses. Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.[17] The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such finding is affirmed by the CA.[18] After examining the records of the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the lower courts' assessment of the credibility of private complainant. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the sole witness of the prosecution strongly tends to indicate that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[19] Moreover, the Court agrees with the OSG that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.[20] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The award of P100,000 as moral damages is reduced, bearing in mind that the award of moral damages is essentially by way of indemnity and reparation and that its purpose is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings. Conformably to prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce the amount to P50,000.[56] | |||||