This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| But as to the circumstance of evident premeditation, we agree with the Court of Appeals that this circumstance could not be appreciated in connection with the killing of Crescini, contrary to the finding of the trial court. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between such a determination and the actual execution to allow the accused time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[19] None of these requisites have been shown from the facts of this case. The records do not show the time and date when appellant resolved to commit the crime. Absent this first requisite, the lapse of time as stated in the third requisite cannot be proved.[20] The second element cannot likewise be proved, absent any showing that appellant performed acts manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination of killing Crescini. | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Threats to kill do not necessarily prove evident premeditation without a showing that appellant performed acts indicating that he clung to his determination. Apart from Saturnino's testimony, the records of the case do not show any evidence to prove the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation as alleged in the Information. There is no showing when and how appellant planned and prepared to kill Luisa. Appellant's threats, unsupported by evidence disclosing a criminal state of mind, are merely casual remarks naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not proof of evident premeditation.[30] | |||||
|
2002-01-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 1486-T, appellant ALEXANDER SALVA is found guilty of frustrated homicide, and he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum.[45] He is also ordered to pay SPO1 MARIANO CURA the amount of P46,770.65 as actual damages, P20,000 as moral damages and P10,000 as attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2001-01-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We come now to the second issue raised by the defense. The accused Rama faults the trial court for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the insufficiency of evidence. First, he makes much of the fact that the prosecution did not present Bryan and Benjamin, the two children who allegedly saw the accused Rama take Joyce Ann. This fact, however, does not militate against the story of the prosecution. It is well-settled that the non-presentation of certain witnesses by the prosecution is not a plausible defense and the matter of choosing witnesses to present lies in the sound discretion of the prosecutor handling the case.[20] Besides, the prosecution adequately explained that the parents of the two children, Bryan and Benjamin, reneged on their willingness to have their children testify after the wife of the accused talked to them for fear of their safety. Likewise, as correctly pointed out in the appellee's brief, nothing could have prevented the defense from presenting Bryan and Benjamin as its own witnesses in order to discredit the testimony of Roxanne, the lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution. The presumption of suppressed evidence does not apply when the same is equally accessible or available to the defense.[21] | |||||