This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the circumstance of age, there must be a showing that the malefactor deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim.[49] Neither could disregard of respect due to sex be appreciated if the offender did not manifest any intention to offend or disregard the sex of the victim.[50] In other words, killing a woman is not attended by the aggravating circumstance if the offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards the offended party's sex.[51] In the case at bar, there is absolutely no showing that accused-appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the victim. However, even if disrespect or disregard of age or sex were not appreciated, the four circumstances enumerated in Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, can be considered singly or together.[52] Article 64, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code is clear on this point:ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Article 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules according to whether there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances: | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In the first place, the municipal trial court found the attendance of an "ordinary aggravating circumstance." The court did not state what this aggravating circumstance was, as required.[16] True, the amended criminal complaint alleged that the crime had been aggravated by the fact that the offended party is a woman. However, the mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se an aggravating circumstance.[17] There was no finding that the evidence proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the offended woman or displayed some specific insult or disrespect to her womanhood. There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance, other than the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance.[18] Hence, such aggravating circumstance was not proved, and indeed, in the circumstances of this case may not be considered as aggravating.[19] Consequently, the trial court erred in "crediting in favor of the prosecution one (1) ordinary aggravating circumstance." On review, the Regional Trial Court Judge did not notice the error because it did not make its own findings of fact, and followed the line of least resistance by simply adopting the trial court's "finding of fact as well as its reasons for making so." Neither did the Court of Appeals notice the error, even if the Solicitor General in his comment noted that the sentence imposed on the accused was excessive, meaning that there was no aggravating circumstance proved.[20] | |||||