This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Passion and obfuscation similarly cannot be appreciated in favor of appellant. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.[34] The bare assertion that the victim and appellant had an argument does not provide justifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance. The cause that produced the passion and obfuscation has not been established nor proven by clear and convincing evidence.[35] The defense advances mere speculations and conjectures to gloss over the fact that there is lack of proof of the cause. Courts are not permitted to render judgments upon guesses or surmises. Suspicion, it has been said, cannot give probative force to testimony which in itself is insufficient to establish or justify an inference of a particular fact.[36] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the brother of appellant's deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been married to Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to Ben.[18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact made.[19] Other than merely attacking the non-presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the admission made by appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the deceased was made through a palpable mistake. | |||||