This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioner's assertion,[51] the appellate court did not err in appreciating the presence of conspiracy despite its finding that there was no evident premeditation. This Court's pronouncement that conspiracy presupposes the existence of evident premeditation[52] does not necessarily imply that the converse â"€ that evident premeditation presupposes the existence of a conspiracy â"€ is true. In any event, a link between conspiracy and evident premeditation is presumed only where the conspiracy is directly established and not where conspiracy is only implied, as in the present case.[53] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We now proceed to the issue of estoppel raised by the Court of Appeals. When petitioner Atty. Regalado brought to the attention of the appellate court through a Motion for Reconsideration the remedial defect attendant to her conviction, the Court of Appeals, instead of rectifying the palpable and patent procedural error it earlier committed, altogether disregarded the glaring mistake by interposing the doctrine of estoppel. The appellate court ruled that having actively participated in the contempt proceedings, petitioner Atty. Regalado is now barred from impugning the Court of Appeals jurisdiction over her contempt case citing the case of People v. Regalario.[42] | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It needs to stress at this juncture that this Court is not convinced to accord to the Accused the beneficent provision of P.D. 603 otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code re suspension of sentence on youthful offenders considering that the Certificate of Birth (Exh. "I") presented by the defense in support of its stance that the Accused was born on 5 June 1981 or less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, bears the name "NOE GARING" and no further evidence was presented to prove that the Accused NIÑO GARIN and this "NOE GARING" are one and the same person. Further, the timing in which the "Late registration" of the said birth certificate was effected on 28 February 1998 when Accused was already brought behind bars, casts doubt on the veracity of the fact it purports to prove. In Peo. vs. REYES, et. al, C.A. 48, O.G. 1022, the appellate court held that "in cases where the age of the culprit is at issue as a basis for claiming an exempting or mitigating circumstance, it is incumbent upon the accused to establish that circumstance as any other element of defense.[89] We do not agree with the conclusion reached by the trial court. The mitigating circumstance of minority, being favorable to the appellant, all doubts should be resolved in his favor.[90] The Court notes that the birth certificate adduced in evidence by the appellant to prove his minority is that of "Noe Garing." Hence, the said certificate does not prove the appellant's minority when he committed the crime. However, when he testified on April 6, 1999, he stated that he was only seventeen years old.[91] No contradictory evidence was presented by the prosecution. Thus, when the crime was committed on April 3, 1997, the appellant was about sixteen years of age. As such, the appellant is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||