This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The above arguments are untenable. In his testimony, Enrico Cebuhano clearly stated that the men who entered his home removed their masks when he was brought downstairs. Why they did so was known only to them. It is possible that they thought that there was no one in the vicinity who could identify them, or that they wanted Enrico to see who they were so as to intimidate him. It is also possible that they felt secure because there were 14 of them who were all armed. In any event, what is important is that the trial court found Enrico Cebuhano's testimony to be both credible and believable, and that he was able to positively identify appellants herein, because the men who entered his home removed their masks, x x x. It is significant to note that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were brutally killed as a result of the kidnapping. It is difficult to believe that Robert and Yao San would point to appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers if such were not true. A witness' relationship to the victim of a crime makes his testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[56] Relationship with a victim of a crime would deter a witness from indiscriminately implicating anybody in the crime. His natural and usual interest would be to identify the real malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for the death of a relative.[57] | |||||
|
2001-11-27 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy implies a concert of design that may be inferred from the acts of the malefactors which point to a joint purpose and a common design. Conspiracy does not require any overt agreement for an appreciable period prior to the perpetration of the crime. From the legal vantage point, it exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused would appear to have acted in concert with one another indicative of a community of intent.[6] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Since this crime was committed before the effectivity of R.A. 7659, or the Death Penalty Law, on December 31, 1993, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly meted by the trial court. However, the indemnity awarded by the trial court to the heirs of the victim must be reduced to P50,000.00 in line with our recent rulings.[53] On the other hand, moral damages be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00,[54] and, in addition, actual damages in the amount of P35,681.35, based on the receipts[55] presented by Luzviminda Roca, should be given to the heirs.[56] | |||||