This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-10-10 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| For the same reason, abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated against the appellants. It must be stressed that this circumstance must be established by clear and categorical evidence. There must exist proof that the attackers deliberately took advantage of their superior strength, their apparent superiority in number vis-a-vis that of the victim, notwithstanding. The records showed no such proof.[36] In the present case, the lone eyewitness did not see how the aggressors attacked the victim. At the time Volante reached the locus criminis, the victim was sprawled on the ground. Volante testified that Buiza held her hands while Candelaria held her feet when Bonito jabbed the cassava trunk inside her vagina. There was no clear proof as to how appellants took advantage of their combined strength in committing the crime. We reiterate that what should be considered, as regards this aggravating circumstance, is not that there were three, four or more assailants as against one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[37] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed for homicide was reclusion temporal. Without the attendance of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.[28] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellants may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is any period of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense, that is, prision mayor, and the maximum of which shall be a stated period within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period, in the absence of any modifying circumstance, as the maximum.[29] | |||||
|
2000-04-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself.[19] We have ruled in People v. Gil Tadeje[20] that in the absence of any other proof presented showing unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. | |||||