This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The essence of evident premeditation, on the other hand, is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[17] For it to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.[18] As aptly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, the trial court conceded that the specific time when the accused determined to commit the crime, and the interval between such determination and execution, cannot be determined.[19] After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees with the CA's finding that no evidence was adduced to prove the first and third elements of evident premeditation. | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, already found that there was no evident premeditation. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. For it to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.[32] As the Court already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the events leading to the stabbing of Maximillian by accused-appellant Arnel happened swiftly and unexpectedly, with accused-appellant Arnel instantaneously and spontaneously stabbing Maximillian with a barbecue stick he found in the area. Accused-appellant Arnel clearly had no opportunity for cool thought and reflection prior to stabbing Maximillian. | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The animosity that transpired between the groups of Jefferson and Lou Anthony could not have justified the assailant's act of killing the victim. The law sets strict parameters for self-defense to be successfully invoked in criminal prosecutions, as it requires the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[23] Whenever self-defense is invoked in court, the burden shifts to the appellant to prove the elements of such claim.[24] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proved: a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and, c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[49] The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[50] | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded utmost respect since trial courts have first hand account on the witnesses' manner of testifying in court and their demeanor during trial.[28] The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility. Moreover in the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, and especially when the findings of the judge have been affirmed by the CA as in this case, the findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed.[29] Besides, even assuming that Anthony and Gina were indeed impelled by improper motive, appellants failed to impeach Ryan, an eyewitness to the incident who positively identified them as the assailants. As observed by the CA: While the appellants question the credibility of the prosecution witness Anthony Ramos, who allegedly had ill motive in testifying against them because appellant Marissa had filed charges against him for cutting the narra tree in front of their house, they failed to impute similar motive on the part of Ryan (Roquero) who also witnessed the incident. x x x [30] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall be within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal), that is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, and maximum of which shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period (there being no other modifying circumstances attendant to the crime), that is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.[71] With that, the indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, should be imposed upon the appellant. However, the case of appellant does not, as it normally should, end at this point. On 20 May 2006, Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," took effect. Section 68 thereof specifically provides for its retroactive application, thus:[72] | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court is unswayed by the foregoing arguments. In the determination of credibility of witnesses, this Court, as a general rule, will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case. This is mainly due to the fact that it was the trial court that heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[27] In the case at bar specifically, the trial court was in the best position to determine whether AAA's facial expressions and demeanor manifested a blithe unconcern about the alleged injustice done to her, or merely an effort to appear courteous to the judge and lawyers. AAA's smiling can hardly be considered a fact of substance and value that should affect the outcome of the case, especially since she is a very young witness with little or no experience in court proceedings. The trial court regarded the following narration of AAA during her testimony as having been "made in a clear, convincing and straight forward manner"[28]: PROSECUTOR NAZ: | |||||