This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-11-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We agree, however, that abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim. To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force, or force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties.[43] It is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor so that the superiority of strength is notoriously advantageous for the latter who took advantage of this superiority in committing the crime.[44] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is no dispute that Norman was facing appellant at the time of the first blow. Subsequently, however, Norman turned his back and tried to run but he was hacked at the back, and when he fell on the ground, he was hacked again repeatedly. It is settled that treachery is to be appreciated when the victim was initially attacked frontally, but was attacked again after being rendered helpless and had no means to defend himself or to retaliate.[52] As long as the attack was sudden and unexpected, and the unarmed victim was not in a position to repel the attack, there is treachery.[53] | |||||
|
2003-06-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We come to the award of damages. We reduce the award of the trial court from P42,500.00 to P19,050.00 because it is only the latter amount which is supported by receipts.[28] The total amount of P19,050.00 consisted of P16,300.00 for funeral services (Loyola de Mesa Funeral Parlor), P2,400.00 for interment services (South Felipe Parish Cemetery), and P350.00 for church services (South Felipe Parish Church).[29] Lastly, we reduce the award of moral damages and civil indemnity from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 each.[30] | |||||
|
2001-10-11 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Benjamin Aca-ac was talking to accused Jimena when appellant approached him from behind. With the butt of his gun, appellant hit Benjamin from behind. Almost simultaneously, accused Jimena boxed Benjamin on the face. The latter has not yet recovered from such sudden attack when appellant went in front of Benjamin and shot him face to face. Under this situation, Benjamin was not given any time at all to react. The suddenness of the attack made it impossible for him to defend himself. He was unarmed and totally defenseless when appellant shot him.[16] Appellant employed means of execution which gave Benjamin no opportunity at all to defend himself and that the manner of execution was deliberately and consciously adapted. While Benjamin was assaulted frontally, this does not make such attack less treacherous. Treachery exists - even if the attack is frontal - if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[17] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention has no merit. The mere fact that Rodora and Modesta Agua are the daughter and wife of the victim, respectively, does not necessarily make their testimonies untruthful. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim without further evidence cannot serve as proof of bias.[13] It may not be presumed that these witnesses would testify falsely just to obtain retribution for the death of a loved one by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent.[14] To the contrary, the inclination of the victim's relatives is to see that the real culprits are punished.[15] | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| The trial court ruled that the crime committed was murder after finding that the killings were attended by treachery, evident premeditation, dwelling and price or reward. Only one aggravating circumstance is enough to qualify the killing to murder, the rest constitute generic aggravating circumstances. We agree with the trial court that treachery was proven since the "attack was sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victims an opportunity to defend themselves or repel the aggression, as in fact the deceased did not sense any danger that they would be shot by the assailants as there was no grudge and misunderstanding between them."[19] Dwelling is also aggravating considering that the assailants were in the sanctity of their own home - which is perhaps the last bulwark of their safety. An unsuspecting knock on the door betrayed that trust of peace in the family who were only conversing. Dwelling, or morada, is aggravating when crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party[20] and the latter has not given provocation.[21] Provocation in dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime.[22] No such provocation concurs herein. With respect to evident premeditation, the hiring of Tiguman to kill the victims for a price, providing the victims' picture and the meeting to carry out the killing provide more than sufficient evidence to appreciate the same. As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he who committed the felonious act for money. The same evidence on price established conspiracy between the appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all.[23] | |||||
|
2001-01-18 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| With regard to actual damages, the trial court likewise erred in awarding the sum of P51,000.00 to the heirs of the victim which must be reduced to P18,000.00 since it is only the latter amount which is supported by a receipt.[14] The bare testimony of the victim's son as to the other expenses was not substantially corroborated by receipts to prove the same. The court can only grant actual damages for such expenses if they are supported by receipts.[15] We affirm the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 should also be awarded as civil indemnity without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[16] | |||||