This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-03-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, as correctly found by the CA, there is scarcity of evidence to doubt the credibility of the prosecution's principal witness, Richard.[38] Even if the said witness failed to immediately disclose or identify the accused as the culprits when he was initially interviewed by the police on July 8, 1996, he cannot be faulted for such omission, as it is not uncommon for witnesses "to delay or vacillate in disclosing the identity of the offender after the startling occurrence for fear of reprisal,"[39] more so, when he was warned by the three accused not to disclose to anyone the killing he had witnessed. | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[21] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[22] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Paragraph 16 of Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.[46] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[47] | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Evident premeditation may be appreciated when the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[8] As its name suggests, evident premeditation must be clearly shown. Before it can be considered, its elements, i.e., 1) the time when the accused has decided to commit the crime, 2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination to commit the crime, and 3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow for reflection upon the consequences of the act,[9] must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the criminal act itself.[10] The existence of conspiracy notwithstanding, evident premeditation cannot be presumed. Only where conspiracy is directly established, as opposed to its being merely implied, can this aggravating circumstance itself be possibly assumed to be attendant.[11] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages may also be awarded in criminal cases where the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[29] However, in view of our earlier finding that the circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated, the award by the trial court of P50,000.00 for exemplary damages must be removed. | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the issue on evident premeditation, we agree with the trial court that such was not clearly established. There is no sufficient evidence to show (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (b) that the culprit had clung to his determination, and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[35] These elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[36] | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| With respect to damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages for P30,000 must be increased to P50,000. The award of P20,000 as exemplary damages is justified by the presence of an aggravating circumstance.[38] | |||||
|
2001-02-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Evident premeditation to be considered must have these elements: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and, (c) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[17] These elements must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated.[18] Here, since there is no showing as to when and how the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered to exist.[19] | |||||