This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| EXTREMITIES: Contusion, left elbow, measuring 8x2 cm, 5 cm medial to its posterior midline. Abrasion, dorsal aspect of the left hand, measuring 0.6 x 0.3 cm, 3 cm medial to its posterior midline.[20] As we already held, the nature and location of wounds are considered important indicators which disprove a plea of self-defense.[21] A perusal of the evidence would depict the presence of a deliberate onslaught against Emilio. The means used by accused-appellants as shown by the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by Emilio are so much more than sufficient to repel or prevent any alleged attack of Emilio against accused-appellant Antonio. Evidently, the accused-appellants' intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by Emilio'. The wounds sustained by Emilio indubitably reveal that the assault was no longer an act of self-defense but a homicidal aggression on the part of accused-appellants.[22] | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners' intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim.[28] The CA aptly observed that the ten (10) hack/stab wounds David suffered and which eventually caused his death, and the thirteen (13) hack/stab wounds Erwin sustained, confirmed the prosecution's theory that the petitioners purposely and vigorously attacked David and Erwin.[29] In fact, the petitioners admitted at the pre-trial that "the wounds inflicted on the victim Erwin Ordoñez would have caused his death were it not for immediate medical attendance."[30] | |||||
|
2013-10-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we find that Benigno is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[51] There is sufficient basis to award moral damages as ordinary human experience and common sense dictate that such wounds inflicted on Benigno would naturally cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar injury.[52] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The trial court's factual findings, when taken collectively, clearly prove the existence of the crime's first and second elements, pertaining to the petitioner's intent to kill and his infliction of fatal wound upon the victim. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim.[8] Significantly, among the witnesses presented by the prosecution was Villanueva, who, while being a friend of the petitioner, had testified against the petitioner as an eyewitness and specifically identified the petitioner as the assailant that caused the wounds sustained by the victim Macario. Even the petitioner cites in the petition he filed with this Court the prosecution's claim that at the time he fired the first gunshot, he was shouting, "Papatayin kita! (I will kill you!)"[9] The doctors who attended to the victim's injuries also affirmed before the trial court that Macario had sustained gunshot wounds, and that the injuries caused thereby were fatal if not given medical attention. The trial court then held: Weighing the evidence thus proffered, this Court believes the prosecution's version. | |||||