This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor against the unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on the latter's part, thus depriving the latter of any real chance of defending himself.[57] Otherwise stated, there is treachery when the following conditions concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[58] | |||||
|
2003-09-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The means employed by a person invoking self-defense must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, as held by the Court in People v. Obordo:[28] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the trial court was correct in awarding civil indemnity to the legal heirs of the victim, Joey Tegas, in the amount of P50,000.00, consistent with the Court's current policy.[18] In addition, however, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded to compensate the victim's heirs for injuries to their feelings, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[19] | |||||
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It may be noted that the testimony given for the prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. In resolving such conflict, dealing as it does with the credibility of the witnesses, the usual rule is for this Court to respect the findings of the trial court as it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[23] However, the rule does admit of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of such weight and substance as to affect the very results of the case.[24] The factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[25] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| other than the death of the victim.[70] Proper too is the entitlement of the victim's heirs to moral damages pegged at P50,000.00 by controlling case law[71] taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family[72] brought about by his death.[73] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Treachery may be committed even if the attack is frontal, but no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.[18] The essence of treachery is a swift attack on an unsuspecting victim without | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| the restaurant to chase accused-appellant. Moreover, Oquendo did not categorically declare that the physical appearance of the man he believed to be the assailant did not match that of accused-appellant. Certainly, Oquendo is not familiar to accused-appellant because he had known him only on the date the crime was committed. Hence, it is doubtful if Oquendo indeed saw or recognized the culprit as to competently declare that he was not accused-appellant. The trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This is because the attack on the victim, though frontal was sudden and unexpected giving him no opportunity to defend himself.[30] As testified by the witness, | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| make.[16] In People vs. Lab-eo, (G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002) it was held that: The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. | |||||