This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Nocturnity is aggravating when it is deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure his unmolested escape.[20] The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance.[21] In the instant case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at night, there is no other evidence that the peculiar advantage of nighttime was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused. | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Having rejected both treachery and evident premeditation in the killing of Suico and Lapidante, we hold appellant guilty only of homicide in both cases. But for the shooting of Lacaden, a careful review must be made of the crime that was actually committed. The RTC charged him with frustrated murder and found him guilty thereof; but, as ruled above, no qualifying circumstance was proven. Thus, his crime can only be frustrated homicide, in which evidence of intent to kill is essential, however.[75] It bears stressing that such intent determines whether the infliction of injuries should be punished as attempted or frustrated murder, homicide or parricide; or as consummated physical injuries.[76] | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Needless to say, the straightforward, clear and positive testimony of the victims -- coupled with the absence of any motive to fabricate evidence or to falsely implicate appellant -- may be enough to convict him.[36] Neither can his denial and alibi be sustained in the light of their positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[37] When categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, it prevails over such defenses[38] which -- unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof -- are deemed negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39] | |||||
|
2003-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the circumstance of intoxication, the lower court was correct in not appreciating intoxication as a generic mitigating circumstance. Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is mitigating when it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication must be proved.[51] In the case at bar, appellant merely alleged that when the offenses were committed, he was so drunk. However, his self-serving statement in the extrajudicial confession was not corroborated by other evidence. The defense did not present evidence neither was it elicited on cross-examination of Juanito Sarmiento who testified that appellant went to see him between 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning on the date of incident. Thus, appellant's bare assertion of intoxication is devoid of any probative value.[52] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As regards the generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle, the trial court erred in appreciating the same inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show that the tricycle was deliberately used by the appellants to facilitate the commission of the crime or that the crime could not have been committed without it. The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.[37] | |||||