This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In order to be appreciated, the circumstance must not merely be premeditation; it must be "evident premeditation."[45] To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[46] Evident premeditation, like other circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder, must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and the preparation stages prior to the killing. Without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable, will not suffice.[47] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We have had occasion to rule that treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated,[71] or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim,[72] or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment.[73] | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, we modify the award for loss of earning capacity. The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity.[10] In this case, Liberty presented a certification from Tanod Publishing which showed that Melendres was a photo correspondent for Tanod Newspaper and that "his monthly salary ranges from P1,780 to P3,570 on per story basis."[11] Liberty presented another certification from Tanod Publishing which showed that Melendres received the total amount of P24,990 representing payment of honoraria and transportation allowance from 1 January to 31 July 2006.[12] The Court notes that the defense did not object when the prosecution presented these documents before the trial court. The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[13] It was also established that at the time of his death, Melendres was 41 years old.[14] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Tigle,[37] we have held that to warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. We held that threats to kill do not necessarily prove evident premeditation. Here, the wife of the victim, Marilyn Lorica testified that two months before the killing or on October 28, 1993 accused-appellant poked a gun at her husband.[38] But apart from her testimony, the prosecution had not presented anything to show that the accused had clung to his threat on that day until the shooting of the victim on December 16, 1993. There was no showing when and how the accused-appellant had planned and prepared to kill the victim. Accused-appellant's threats, unsupported by evidence disclosing a criminal state of mind, are merely casual remarks naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not proof of evident premeditation.[39] This principle holds true only in debunking the allegation that the killing of the victim was attended by evident premeditation. This, however, does not exculpate the accused-appellant from his guilt because he was positively identified by a credible witness as the perpetrator. | |||||
|
2008-10-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, we delete the award of actual damages. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable.[5] In this case, the prosecution presented receipts amounting to only P12,026.60.[6] However, in accordance with People v. Villanueva,[7] we award P25,000 as temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. | |||||