This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We do not, however, agree that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength had been sufficiently proved. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[13] Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[14] There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.[15] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery lies in the attack which comes without warning, and is swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape,[50] ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[51] What is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.[52] Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace.[53] | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[24] Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[25] Conspiracy must be proven as convincingly as the criminal act itself like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[26] For a co-conspirator to be liable for the acts of the others, there must be intentional participation in the conspiracy with a view to further a common design.[27] Except for the mastermind, it is necessary that a co-conspirator should have performed some overt act actual commission of the crime itself, active participation as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime, or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.[28] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Once again, we reiterate the rule that findings of fact of the trial court carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal absent any strong and cogent reason to the contrary, since it is in a better position to decide the question of credibility of witnesses. In the determination of the veracity of the testimony, the assessment by the trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is seen to have acted arbitrarily or with evident partiality.[8] None of the exceptions exists in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, a concerted action, and a community of interest.[61] In this case, the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove that indeed the appellants killed Pagapulan. It does not matter who of the two appellants actually killed him. As correctly held by the trial court, the appellants conspired to kill Pagapulan. The act of one is the act of both.[62] | |||||