This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The culpability of appellants and their co-accused is undeniable. Lauro was consistently identified by the witnesses as the person responsible for shooting both victims. At the same time, the existence of conspiracy among the assailants is patent. Conspiracy has been deduced by the Court in a case where three malefactors jointly lifted, carried and dumped their victim in a deep well filled with water head first and threw rocks inside the well to cover him;[48] by the successive acts of three appellants in shooting, clubbing and piercing the eye of the victim;[49] where one appellant put his arms around the body of the victim while his co-appellant held the thighs of the victim and while they held him down, one poked and fired the gun at the back of the head of the victim;[50] when two accused chased their victim into his house, kicked open the door to enter and then shot him;[51] and when one malefactor hacked the victim and two others chased after the latter to finish up the aggression they had started.[52] | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also fails to support his opposition to the award of attorney's fees. The recovery of such fees in the concept of actual or compensatory damages is allowed under the circumstances. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees and the expenses of litigation are awarded when the court deems them just and equitable.[40] Considering that the trial took almost two years to complete,[41] and that the agreed attorney's fees of the private prosecutor engaged to represent complainant[42] is twenty-five percent (25%) of the sum due in each case, the award of P18,000 as attorney's fees for each of the cases is just and reasonable. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nothing on the record shows the actual expenses incurred by the heirs of the victim for attorney's fees and lawyer's appearance fees. Attorney's fees are in the concept of actual or compensatory damages and allowed under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[67] one of which is when the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees should be recovered.[68] In this case, we find an award of P25,000 in attorney's fees and litigation expenses reasonable and equitable. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm , such use of an unlicensed firearm is considered as an aggravating circumstance which if appreciated warrants the imposition of the death penalty.[26] However the accusatory portion of the Information merely mentions that the crime was committed with the use of a firearm but neglected to state that the same was illegally possessed or unlicensed. Thus, the trial court's non-appreciation of said circumstance was proper. | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| An award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is proper under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, one of which is when the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered[56] and when the civil action or proceeding is clearly unfounded and where defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith.[57] "The award of attorney's fees as damages is the exception rather than the rule; it is not to be given to the defendant every time the latter prevails. The right to litigate is so precious that a penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously, unless, of course such party acted in bad faith."[58] In this case, however, we would rather not award attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the absence of showing of gross and evident bad faith in filing the action.[59] | |||||
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Further, Jonathan Aromin categorically and positively identified accused-appellant as the person who pursued and shot him at close range. This Court has no reason to doubt his testimony for even accused-appellant admitted that he and the witness were in good terms prior to the incident.[35] Neither does this Court have any ground to question the veracity of Leonila Lopez's testimony that she saw accused-appellant shoot Jonathan Aromin as there was no proved ill motive on her part. Thus, where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, such testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[36] Besides, it has been an established rule that unless the trial judge overlooked certain facts of substance and value, which if considered might affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses.[37] We find no reason to deviate from this well-entrenched principle. | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Q: While you were asleep on May 30, 1994, at 2:00 in the morning, can you still recall if you were awakened and why? A: I was awakened because I was surprised. Q: Why were you surprised? A: Because he was on top of me. Q: Who was the person on top of you? A: Elming Cajara. Q: How do you know that it was Elming? A: Because there was light for the whole morning. Q: Where was this light being placed? A: On the altar. Q: How far was the light to the place where you were lying down? A: About two meters. Q: Did Elming say anything to you when he was on top of you? A: Yes, ma'am x x x x He said keep quiet x x x x If you will make a noise I will kill you. Q: What else? A: I shouted x x x x Help, help Manding. Q: Who is this Manding you are referring to? A: Meling. Q: Your elder sister? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And when Elming Cajara warned you not to make any noise did you observe if he has (sic) any weapon with him? A: Yes he has x x x x Sundang. Q: Where was the bolo? A: Near the head x x x x Elming Cajara at the time he slept he has a bolo with him. Q: Where is this bolo you are referring to? A: Near the head he was holding. Q: He was holding the bolo with what hand? A: Right hand. Q: About you when you shouted, what else did you do while he was on top of you. A: I kept on asking for help because he was holding my two hands over my head. Q: With what hand he was holding your hands as he was holding the bolo? A: When he told me not to make any noise he was holding my two hands. Q: With what hand and how did he hold your two hands? A: His right hand. Q: How about his left hand? A: Undressing me. Q: What was being undressed? (sic) A: My maong pants x x x x Garterized. Q: Do (sic) you have panty at that time? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: How about your panty, was it undressed? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Up to what portion of your body were you undressed? A: Middle part of my legs. Q: As you were shouting for your Manding to help you, what did your Manding do? A: After I was shouting for help for a long time, Manding grabbed Elming from me and Meling punched Elming hitting his eye. Q: When Meling grabbed and punched Elming, what was Elming doing at that time? A: He inserted his finger into my vagina after which he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: What did you do when Elming inserted his finger into your vagina? A: I was trying to resist (from) him but I could not as he was holding my hands. Q: While he was inserting his penis to your vagina, what did you do? A: I was trying to resist and shouting and I was weak x x x x Q: After Meling pulled her husband, what happened next? A: Meling fell because she was punched by Elming x x x x She was hit on her mouth and she was kicked x x x x Q: After kicking Meling what did Elming do? A: After Elming kicked Meling and I was able to put on my panty Elming came back. Q: When Elming went back to you, what did Elming do to you? A: x x x x he undressed me again x x x x he abused me again x x x x he was inserting his finger and penis into my vagina. Q: Was he able to insert again his penis into your vagina? A: Yes, ma'am x x x x Q: For how many times have (sic) he inserted his penis? A: Twice.[8] The argument of the accused is untenable that the testimony of his common-law wife that there was no rape should have been believed by the trial court because she was Marita's half-sister who would naturally protect Marita's honor if she was indeed raped. Not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the expectation of mankind.[9] We have noted that in some instances it was but natural for witnesses not to come to the victim's rescue for fear of their lives, especially when threatened with harm should they do so. Self preservation is still recognized as the most fundamental human instinct.[10] | |||||