This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[18] We agree with the CA that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case. As aptly pointed out by the CA, De Leon was already helpless when he was repeatedly attacked with a gas tank. Appellants clearly used excessive force against the already unarmed and defenseless De Leon. This is clear from Romeo's own testimony: Q - You said that your cousin Randolf Pabanil came, where did he come from? A - From behind, sir. Q - From behind of whom? A - Behind the man wearing leather jacket, sir. x x x x Q - xxx what did Randolf do to this man? A - He suddenly punched the man behind his ear, sir. Q - So what happened to the man wearing leather jacket? A - He went off balance but he was able to draw his gun. Q - Now, what did you do next, Mr. Witness? A - I was able to grab the gun and then Randolf punched the man 3 times. Q - You said you were able to get hold the gun and you also said that Randolf was able to punch that man, how many times he punched that man? A - Two or three times, sir. Q - Now what happened after Mr. Randolf Pabanil punched him 2 to 3 times, what happened next, Mr. Witness? A - Nabitawan ko yong baril. Q - Mr. Witness, you said that the man wearing leather jacket was able to draw the gun and you said that you were able to get hold of this, you likewise stated that Mr. Randolf Pabanil punched him while he was still holding the gun, now what happened after this? A - The gun went-off sir. Q - Now, was there anything that was hit by this gunshot? A - None, sir. Q - Now, after the gun went-off what happened next? A - The man dropped his gun and then Randolf got the gas tank and hit him on his neck. Q - Q - After the gun was dropped what did you do next Mr. Witness? A - I took the gun, sir. Q- Now, while you are holding the gun what was Mr. Randolf Pabanil doing? A - He hit the man another (sic) times, sir. Q - What did he hit the man with? A - LPG gas tank, sir. Q - So all in all how many time[s] did Randolf Pabanil hit the man with the LPG gas tank? A - Twice, sir.[19] (Emphasis supplied) And as testified to by Lonzame, after the accused left, appellant Romeo returned, picked up the gas tank and dropped it to De Leon.[20] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Thus, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00. Also, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 must be awarded as it is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[26] | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Alibi cannot prevail over the victim's positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime,[32] especially when the victim remained steadfast in her testimony when subjected to the rigors of cross- examination. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In addition to the above considerations, the appellant's claim of self-defense was also belied by his own conduct after the shooting. The records show that the appellant went into hiding after he was criminally charged.[17] He also stayed in hiding for four (4) years and could have continued doing so had it not been for his arrest.[18] Self-defense loses its credibility given the appellant's flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities about the incident.[19] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, it is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense, an accused admits the commission of the act of killing. The burden of evidence, therefore, shifts to the accused's side in clearly and convincingly proving that the elements of self-defense exist that could justify the accused's act.[34] In this case, considering that at the outset, accused-appellant has already maintained a claim of self-defense, the burden of evidence rests upon him in proving his act of stabbing as justifiable under the circumstances. | |||||