This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The aggravating circumstance of superior strength should be appreciated against the accused-appellants. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, considering that a situation of superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.[24] This circumstance was alleged in the Information and was proved during the trial. In the case at bar, the victim certainly could not defend himself in any way. The accused-appellants, armed with a deadly weapon, immobilized the victim and stabbed him successively using the same deadly weapon. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the quoted ruling of the appellate court were culled from the records of the case. Lourdes Basilan's positive identification of the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime, not only during the trial proper but also, during the clarificatory hearing, when upon seeing the petitioner, she exclaimed, "Iyan, iyan na nga! (That's him)!", coupled with her testimony which was replete with details. The positive identification of the accused, where categorical and consistent without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial[26] which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[27] | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, absent any aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime.[35] It also correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), an additional amount of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) representing the amount taken from the victim, and moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The civil indemnity for the victim's death is automatically granted without need of proof other than the commission of the crime,[36] and the award of moral damages needs no proof since the conviction of the appellant for the crime charged is sufficient to justify the award of the same.[37] However, the trial court incorrectly awarded exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Absent any aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime charged, the award of exemplary damages in this case should be deleted. | |||||
|
2001-11-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The testimony of defense witness Dorie Talledo, barangay captain of Humay-humay,[28] has been discredited inasmuch as it was established that she is the aunt of accused-appellant Jerson Acojedo.[29] Relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. However, in the case at bar, Dorie Talledo's relationship with accused-appellant, taken together with the self-serving and conflicting testimonies of accused-appellant and his mother, assumes importance. "Indeed, blood relatives tend to be naturally protective of each other and are not above giving false testimonies in favor of one another, especially a relative in danger of being convicted."[30] | |||||
|
2001-11-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We rule out, however, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. "To establish evident premeditation, there must be proof of (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and, (c) the lapse of a sufficient period of time between the determination and the execution of the crime, to allow the accused an opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of the act."[34] The evidence is not sufficient to prove that all these elements attended the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree with the trial court that the prosecution sufficiently proved the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.[73] The fact that the victim was a woman does not, by itself, establish that accused-appellant committed the crime with abuse of superior strength. There ought to be enough proof of the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim.[74] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court's award of civil indemnity to the heirs of Brosas in the amount of P50,000.00 is consistent with current case law.[50] In addition, they should also be awarded moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 which needs no proof, the conviction of the accused for the crime being sufficient to justify the award of the same.[51] | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A resolution of the issues raised in this case will not be complete without a final word on the grant of moral damages in murder and homicide. Unlike in the crime of rape, moral damages in murder and homicide are granted only when the heirs of the victim have alleged and proved mental suffering. However, the Court recently pointed out in People v. Uldarico Panado, et al.,[58] that "[a]s borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with a gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them." In rethinking its policy on the award of moral damages when a life is taken, the Court in People v. Carlito Cortez, et al.,[59] stated that such an award - | |||||