This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Given the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Perlaoans, we agree with the trial court and the appellate court that treachery attended the attack. Treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[30] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Treachery or alevosia is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[52] Two essential requisites must concur for treachery to be appreciated: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[53] | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellants' defense of denial is a negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[53] Hence, the identification of appellants as the assailants of the victim must prevail over the bare denials of appellants.[54] | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is basic that findings of facts of trial courts are accorded by appellate courts with great, if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage enjoyed by trial courts of observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of witnesses as they give their testimonies.[23] Trial courts have the unique advantage of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying --- the brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, the itching over-eagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one.[24] Indeed, assignment of values to declarations on the witness stand is best done by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh firsthand the testimony of a witness.[25] | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Further, there is no evidence showing that Sabater was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant; hence, his testimony deserves full faith and credence.[69] It is well settled that the positive testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to support a judgment of conviction because truth is established by the quality, not the quantity, of the evidence.[70] | |||||