This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2001-11-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of treachery in the killing of Pablito. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[12] In the case at bar, Pablito was seated on the bench and was singing with his friends when the appellant suddenly appeared and lunged at him with a knife, repeatedly stabbing him on the chest. Clearly, the attack was all too sudden. There is nothing in the records to show that it was preceded by an altercation or that Pablito gave the slightest provocation. Although Pablito was seated among his friends at the time he was stabbed, this did not afford him any shield or refuge as his friends were likewise caught off-guard by the suddenness of the unprovoked attack. His friends remained seated and motionless due to shock. In fact, it was only after the stabbing incident when the appellant left the crime scene that Pablito's friends regained their composure and sought shelter to protect themselves. Clearly, their presence did not diminish the suddenness of the appellant's aggression. From the evidence adduced, the stabbing, although frontal, was so unexpected and sudden that it left Pablito and his friends, all unarmed, with nary an opportunity to put up a defense.[13] Indeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim.[14] Clearly then, in the case at bar, treachery qualified the killing to murder. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As regards the civil liability of accused-petitioner, moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim in accordance with current rulings.[25] | |||||
|
2001-02-21 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Considering that the accused-appellant was found guilty by the trial court of having committed the crime of murder on November 18, 1987, the prescribed penalty therefor should be based on the law prior to the date of effectivity on December 31, 1993 of the Death Penalty Law (R.A. No. 7659) which amended Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The ruling of this Court in People vs. Berzuela[54] is instructive, to wit:"Prior to the effectivity of the law, murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, was punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death. Applying, by analogy, Art. 61(3), which provides that `When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale," this means that the three periods of the penalty are reclusion temporal maximum, as minimum, reclusion perpetua as medium, and death as maximum. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty will be imposed in its medium period, i.e., reclusion perpetua." In the case at bar, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the trial court was correct in imposing the proper penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of murder. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim in this case is also in accord with law and jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2001-01-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| However, the award of P200,000.00 as moral damages must be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with current rulings,[53] while the award of P63,800.00 as actual damages must be disallowed for lack of receipts to support the same.[54] | |||||
|
2000-11-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Third. Based on the foregoing, accused-appellant is liable for homicide only, which is punishable by reclusion temporal under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the absence of any aggravating circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty against accused-appellant is six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition to the P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court, accused-appellant should also be ordered to pay the heirs of Teodolfo Ramirez moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[28] | |||||
|
2000-10-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| it must be shown not only that accused-appellant was somewhere else at the time the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[41] The same is true with regard to accused-appellant's claim that on May 27, 1995 and June 3, 1995, when complainant said she saw him after the incident, he was in some other place and could not possibly have been seen by her. Defense witness Narbay, who was supposed to | |||||