This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The following elements must be established in order that evident premeditation may be appreciated: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[29] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[30] Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[31] In this case at bar, the record is bereft of any evidence to show evident premeditation. It was not shown that the accused-appellants meditated and reflected upon their decision to kill the victim. We have held that the premeditation to kill must be plain, notorious and sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill.[32] | |||||
|
2008-09-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[33] Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[34] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[35] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[29] Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[30] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[31] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements. | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. [47] Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive proof; that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[48] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[49] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to show the presence of any of these elements. | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive evidence;[14] that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[15] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflections upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. To be considered, the following elements must be proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[16] | |||||
|
2001-02-13 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, petitioner's conduct immediately after the shooting belies his claim of self-defense. Petitioner testified that after the shooting incident he simply "walked towards Abogado Street and waited for a ride for Sabang with the intention of going home to Tacloban City."[12] His actuation is akin to flight and flight negates an accused's plea of self-defense and indicates guilt.[13] The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of accused's flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident.[14] As a law enforcer himself, he should have proceeded to a police station to report the incident or await for the police and submit the matter for investigation. Persons who act in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and describe fully and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts.[15] They lose no time in going to the punong barangay, the municipal mayor or the police and lay before them all the facts.[16] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| But reliance on People v. Magsombol is misplaced. The facts therein would show that the attack by the accused was frontal and his victim managed thereafter to run for about fifteen (15) meters, while the accused did not bother to pursue him but fled instead to the opposite direction. It befits logic to presume that accused therein, although momentarily enraged, was still uncertain whether he had already killed the victim or simply wounded him. If the accused was truly bent on killing the victim, the former would have finished him off instead of merely fleeing to the opposite direction. In contrast, the accused herein came from behind his unsuspecting victim who did not have the slightest inkling that he would be attacked that afternoon in the presence of mahjong players and spectators and their kibitzers. As the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as treacherous.[23] As the attack was synchronal, sudden and unexpected, treachery was evident.[24] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| But the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength since this is deemed absorbed in treachery.[29] | |||||