This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight thereof and its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they gave their testimonies before the trial court.[44] Unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate courts are bound by the findings of facts of the trial court.[45] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We cannot appreciate treachery against appellant. There is no treachery where the sudden attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.[25] There was no sufficient evidence that appellant deliberately adopted the means of execution employed by him. What is apparent is that appellant perpetrated the killing impulsively.[26] For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. The prosecution must adduce conclusive proof as to the manner in which the altercation started and resulted in the death of the victim. If the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, the crime committed is homicide and not murder.[27] | |||||