This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[45] It takes place when the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[46] | |||||
|
2010-08-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| First, we emphasize that the findings of fact of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, and the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions based on the said findings, will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[32] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[27] The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[28] For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[29] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The information alleged that appellants, together with Charlito and Jose Jr., conspired in killing Titing Asenda. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence, the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.[41] Indeed, proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy. It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the victim's death.[42] Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation. In the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all, and it matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow on the victim.[43] | |||||
|
2007-03-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| For the plaintiff-appellee, the Solicitor General argued that: the paraffin test and the ballistic examination are not conclusive proof that Galvez did not fire a gun during the incident; in this case, the paraffin test was conducted on Galvez two days from the date of the incident; Galvez was also positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of four armed men who attacked them during the incident; Perez clarified that while he was in a crawling position, he was looking upward, thus, he was able to identify Galvez; between Galvez's alibi and the positive declarations of witnesses whose testimonies have not been assailed nor discredited by improper motive, the latter deserves greater credence; the trial court correctly convicted Galvez of murder as there was treachery since the victim was not in a position to defend himself from the attack of the accused; the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code as there was no mitigating circumstance;[31] Galvez is also liable for temperate damages of P25,000.00 since pecuniary loss has been suffered although its exact amount could not be determined, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery; the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim together with the P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court for moral damages.[32] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim.[7] The presence of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[8] | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Q And what were you doing at that time? A I was just inside the house cleaning.[31] In any case, the purported inconsistencies in the time of the killing are minor ones that bear little significance to the outcome of the case. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity of the weight of their testimonies.[32] | |||||
|
2002-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court has recognized that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. This is especially true with young witnesses who could be overwhelmed by the atmosphere of the courtroom. Hence, there is more reason to accord them an ample space for inaccuracy.[9] So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies. When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim.[10] | |||||
|
2002-03-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Treachery is the deliberate and unexpected attack on the victim without any warning and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.[11] Hence, for treachery to qualify the killing, two elements must concur, namely: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[12] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court erroneously held that appellant's surrender was not voluntary because his surrender was more of an apprehension on his part that if apprehended he would be subjected to torture which is more speculative than real.[23] However, the transcript showed that initially appellant was afraid to surrender because he heard that the police always hurt the suspect in jail. Upon the advice of his brothers and cousin, appellant nevertheless surrendered to Policeman Rodrigo Lucas at the latter's residence in Linglingay, Gamu, Isabela on November 21, 1995, three (3) days after the stabbing incident.[24] To us, although appellant was afraid to surrender because of his apprehension that he would be hurt in jail, yet appellant in fact voluntarily surrendered to policeman Rodrigo Lucas, thus saving the authorities the trouble and expense in effecting his capture. Granting that it were also true that appellant surrendered to Policeman Rodrigo Lucas because he was afraid that if apprehended by another policeman he would be subjected to torture, this circumstance should not affect the voluntariness and spontaneity of his surrender. In the parallel case of People v. Amazan,[25] although the accused-appellant therein surrendered four (4) days later because of fear of reprisal, the Court said that the admission should not be taken against him, as it has been held[26] that said circumstance does not detract from the spontaneity of the surrender, nor does it alter the fact that by giving himself up, the accused-appellant has saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. In People v. Bautista,[27] this Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused-appellant who surrendered himself to a police authority four (4) days after the commission of a crime. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of appellant. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| Second, ANTONIO's assertion that Luna said that the buy-bust operation lasted for "a very short span of time" is misleading since the transcript never showed that Luna gave an estimate on the duration of the buy-bust operation. Hence, the alleged inconsistency has no factual basis. Assuming, gratis argumenti, that indeed there was an inconsistency, it is too trivial to affect the credibility of the witnesses. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[23] | |||||
|
2001-09-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Fourth. Nor did the trial court err in finding that accused-appellants had conspired on both occasions to commit the crime of rape. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed. It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[30] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[28] Two essential elements must, therefore, be established, to wit: (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. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[29] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[18] For treachery to be considered, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[19] In this case, the victim was in the comforts of his own home, enjoying a televised basketball game. He was shot in the head from the back, with the gunman even having all the time in the world to roll up his sleeves and take careful aim. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life, and was not in the position to defend himself. Clearly, treachery was present in this killing. | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the contradictions between the sworn statement and testimony in court of PO3 Angelito Salas, it has been observed that such inconsistencies are oftentimes due to the fact that affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by others and are only signed by the affiants.[19] As this Court pointed out in People vs. Nestor Seduco:[20] "[C]ertain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom could discredit the declarant.[21] Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries."[22] They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.[23] Our case law is unequivocal in saying that the testimony of a witness prevails over an affidavit.[24] In short, affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations,[25] or, more bluntly stated, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[26] | |||||
|
2001-04-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to the other alleged inconsistencies in Joanna's testimony, we have already held that errorless testimonies cannot be expected from victims of sex crimes as they might, in fact, be trying to erase from their memory the details of their harrowing experience.[24] But as long as the testimony in the main coincides on material points, minor inconsistencies can affect neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies.[25] In Joanna's case, although she contradicted herself as to the place where accused-appellant slept, the point is that as both accused-appellant and her mother Nimfa testified, the entire family sleep in the sala.[26] Indeed, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is best performed by the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor during the trial. Thus, his findings on their credibility are given the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial judge overlooked circumstances of substance which might have affected the result of the case.[27] Substantial matters, in criminal cases, refer to facts which are constitutive of the crime charged.[28] In any event, Joanna was never confronted with her prior inconsistent statements and given a chance to explain the alleged contradictions as required by Rule 132, §13. Thus, accused-appellant should not now be allowed to raise this matter on appeal.[29] Accused-appellant says that Joanna's claim that he abused her in the sala not only once but also on several other occasions is highly improbable because his wife Nimfa and their other children also sleep in the sala. As we have observed, however, lust is no respecter of time and place. If rape can be committed in places where people congregate, even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping,[30] there is less reason to believe that other people sleeping in the same room can serve as a deterrent for the commission of lascivious acts. | |||||
|
2001-02-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "SO ORDERED."[5] The Mirasols then filed an appeal with the respondent court, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 38607, faulting the trial court for not nullifying the dacion en pago and the mortgage contracts, as well as the foreclosure of their mortgaged properties. Also faulted was the trial court's failure to award them the full money claims and damages sought from both PNB and PHILEX. | |||||
|
2001-01-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Anent the first requisite, Dr. Roldan testified that based on her findings, the victim was not in a position to fight the assailant and that she might have been stabbed while she was asleep.[62] As regards the second requisite, the number and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim lead to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant employed means in killing the victim which tended directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might take. Accused-appellant would not have inflicted so many wounds, a total of 10, half of which were fatal, if he had not deliberately adopted such manner of attack.[63] Abuse of superior strength also attended the killing since accused-appellant, a man and armed with a knife, attacked the victim, an unarmed and defenseless woman.[64] However, since abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, there is no need to appreciate it separately as an independent aggravating circumstance.[65] | |||||