This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must concur: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and 3) the surrender was voluntary.[61] It is sufficient that that act be spontaneous and clearly indicative of the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, because there is either an acknowledgement of guilt or a desire to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that would necessarily be incurred in searching for and capturing the culprit.[62] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Did appellant Roberto Saul voluntarily surrender such that it may mitigate his liability? For voluntary surrender to mitigate the offense, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary.[26] A surrender, to be voluntary must be spontaneous, i.e. there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him.[27] We are unable to agree with the CA's finding that Roberto's surrender was not voluntary simply because he surrendered only in the afternoon of the day following the crime and only after he presented himself to the NBI that same morning, implying that his surrender was a mere afterthought.[28] For voluntary surrender to mitigate an offense, it is not required that the accused surrender at the first opportunity. For as long the aforementioned requisites are met, voluntary surrender can be appreciated. Roberto Saul presented himself to the NBI in the morning and in the afternoon of that same day, gave himself up. He was not apprehended nor forced to surrender. In our view, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should count in his favor. | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The actual damages awarded by the trial court were duly supported by receipts,[40] and should be allowed. Moral damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2219 (1) of the New Civil Code which provides that moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries,[41] understood in the generic sense. Rogelio categorically stated during his testimony that he suffered mental anguish over the death of his wife.[42] | |||||
|
2000-10-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The amount of P50,000.00 was correctly awarded as death indemnity.[31] However, as to P300,000.00 imposed as moral damages, the amount is excessive and may be reduced to P50,000.00,[32] pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. The amount of P35,568.00 as actual damages is supported by receipts,[33] and should therefore be affirmed. Further, we must also award damages for the loss of the victim's earning capacity. The formula for loss of earning capacity is: life expectancy x (gross annual income - living expenses), with living expenses computed as 50% of gross annual income.[34] As computed, for loss of earning capacity, the amount of P1,962,500.00[35] must be awarded to the heirs of the victim. | |||||
|
2000-05-30 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The award to the victim's heirs of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is proper since civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[40] The fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) awarded as moral damages is likewise reasonable for the pain and mental suffering that the victim's brutal murder caused her family.[41] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Treachery likewise did not attend the commission of the crime. The qualifying circumstance of treachery can not be taken into consideration in the absence of evidence showing the manner of attack and what ensued inside the hut. Nobody witnessed the actual killing, only its immediate aftermath. Where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven.[36] It cannot be presumed or concluded merely on the basis of the resulting crime.[37] When no particulars are known regarding the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it cannot be established from mere supposition that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.[38] | |||||