This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-07-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Treachery was correctly appreciated by the RTC and CA-Cebu. A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack.[17] The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution of the crime, and to render the victim defenseless, then treachery may be properly appreciated against the accused.[18] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, our scrutiny of the so-called inconsistencies relied upon by Asilan showed that they only referred to minor details, which did not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.[33] In People v. Albarido,[34] this Court said: It is elementary in the rule of evidence that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed. In People vs. Maglente, this Court ruled that inconsistencies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal. x x x.[35] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q Sinong kasama mo noong pinauwi ka? A Wala, pero mula sa McDonald, naiwan na ako sa tricycle hanggang sa bahay.[13] Unshaken by rigorous cross-examination, Rocky's testimony would have been more than enough to convict Castillo. The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.[14] But there is more. The evidence on record amply supports the factual findings of the trial court. Both the evidence of the prosecution and the defense establish the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, what is significant is that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses and found them to be truthful and worthy of credence.[17] The determination of credibility of witnesses is properly the function of the trial court considering its vantage position in observing their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand. Hence, its findings with respect to the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect, and even finality, unless such findings are arbitrary or facts and circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied by the trial judge which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2002-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The issue of lack of motive on the part of accused-appellant to kill the victim has no bearing in the instant case. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[25] In the present case, accused-appellant was positively identified by the wife of the victim. Since it was not shown that Carmen Verceles was impelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against him, the presumption is that, she was not so moved and that her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[26] | |||||