This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-01-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The information alleges the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. There is no doubt that the killings were done with treachery, considering that the assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went on a shooting rampage. We have time and again ruled that when the attack is sudden and unexpected, there is treachery.[32] The presence of even this single qualifying circumstance is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder.[33] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| In view of the diametrically opposed versions of the prosecution and the defense, the resolution of the present case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses who had come forward to testify. We have long recognized that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies lies within the province and competence of the trial court because it has the direct opportunity to observe the witness' attitude, demeanor, deportment, and manner of testifying,[14] all of which aid in determining whether the witness is telling the truth or merely prevaricating. Thus, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect and even finality by appellate courts[15] unless some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result or disposition of the case was ignored, misapplied, misunderstood, or overlooked by the trial court or when the finding of fact was reached arbitrarily or capriciously.[16] We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its factual findings as to what actually happened, the same being amply supported by evidence. | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| respectively, the records, however, are bereft of proof that the two unidentified muggers were also armed. For one, prosecution eyewitness Solomon testified that he did not see whether or not the two other hold-up men were armed.[44] Next, while prosecution witness Elidio stated in his affidavit that all four of the hold-up men were armed when they announced a hold-up (apat na holdaper na armado ng patalim at baril, at sila ay nagsabi ng "Holdap"),[45] he, however, admitted during his testimony in court that he could not identify the two other malefactors nor did he see whether or not they were armed.[46] His testimony on the witness stand should be held more weighty than his affidavit, for ex parte affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in open court.[47] Thus, we find that for lack of sufficient proof the aggravating circumstance of "in band" must be ruled out. It follows that there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua.[48] Accordingly, the grant of damages needs to be modified. The sum of P50,000 is properly awarded as civil indemnity for the wrongful death of PO1 Llave without need of proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[49] In addition, another sum of | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson; x x x There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed on appellant the sentence of reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties.[22] | |||||