This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. First is the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense. Second is the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. The two tests should be applied in the alternative.[65] When appellant Demate asked the housemaid to let him inside her master's house at 3:00 a.m., we can grant that the subjective test was passed. However, in the imposition of the penalty on appellants, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime for two reasons. First, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is already absorbed by treachery.[66] Second, the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511 did not specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which should be given retroactive effect following the rule that statutes governing court proceedings will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage,[67] every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances.[68] Hence, since the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8511, it could not be appreciated against the appellants. | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Taking Rowena's version in its totality, we find ourselves unable to concur with the credibility accorded to it by the trial court. For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.[15] The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.[16] Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[17] | |||||
|
2000-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. The fines imposed for violations of the notice requirement have varied from P1,000.00[22] to P2,000.00[23] to P5,000.00[24] to P10,000.00.[25] | |||||