This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the trial. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima facie case.[15] | |||||
|
2003-05-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As for evident premeditation, we agree that its elements were not clearly established by the prosecution. To prove this attendant circumstance, evidence must show: (1) the time the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[27] There is no clear proof as to when the accused hatched the murderous plan, and the interval of time therefrom to its commission. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. [18] Treachery clearly attended the killing as the victim was killed while he was asleep.[19] The victim's wife testified that accused-appellant suddenly barged into their house and stabbed her husband several times, while he was sleeping near the door; and that the latter was in no position to flee or defend himself. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.[20] The trial court, however, erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[21] now require that the information or complaint allege not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances, | |||||