This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-10-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While the appellant tested negative for gunpowder nitrates, Forensic Chemist Salinas testified that a paraffin test is not conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun. This view is fully in accord with past findings and observations of this Court that paraffin tests, in general, are inconclusive; the negative findings in paraffin tests do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm.[48] Our ruling in People v. Teehankee, Jr.[49] on this point is particularly instructive: Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has "... proved extremely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand. It cannot be established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The person may have handled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco." In numerous rulings, we have also recognized several factors which may bring about the absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of a gunman, viz: when the assailant washes his hands after firing the gun, wears gloves at the time of the shooting, or if the direction of a strong wind is against the gunman at the time of firing. x x x x [Emphasis ours] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In qualifying the crime to murder, the trial court correctly appreciated the circumstance of treachery. 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.[65] Treachery clearly attended the killing as Ladaga, pinned down by Taan, was tipsy when he was killed, and thus was enfeebled and did not have full control of his senses.[66] Previously, Ladaga's hands had been tied and his forehead had been struck with a stone.[67] With Marquez carrying a shovel and Taan armed with a gun, the unarmed, weakened Ladaga was clearly defenseless. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[68] | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Obviously, the manner of killing was deliberately adopted. It bears reiterating that Calejanan and Saluyo held the victim's hands when Berdin hacked his head twice with a bolo. And when the victim was about to fall, again Calejanan and Saluyo held him. At once, Berdin grabbed the victim's head and slashed his neck. There is treachery when the attack is sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend himself.[55] Treachery, being attendant in the slaying of the victim qualifies the crime into murder.[56] | |||||
|
2002-04-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In his testimony,[55] appellant stated that because he was afraid his co-accused would hurt him if he refused, he agreed to assist the latter in carrying the victim towards the river. The fact that appellant left thereafter likewise indicated his innocence of the charge.[56] Verily, he adequately explained his conduct prior to the stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own life.[57] It is not incredible for an eyewitness to a crime, especially if unarmed, to desist from assisting the victim if to do so would put the former's life in peril.[58] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has declared that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. That is, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case.[26] This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since the trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, it was in a position to discern whether or not they were telling the truth.[27] The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[28] Appellant has not given the Court sufficient reason to deviate from this doctrine. | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This omission is too flimsy to impair Casiguran's credibility. It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be drawn.[11] | |||||
|
2001-11-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, this Court has declared that the findings of the trial court on this matter should not be disturbed on appeal, unless the latter has overlooked some facts or circumstances of substance and value which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case. This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since the trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not they are telling the truth.[21] The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[22] Appellant herein has not given the Court sufficient reason to deviate from this doctrine. | |||||