This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-03-10 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or Jalandoni took part in shooting PO2 Pangilinan dead.[11] This may be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [12] | |||||
|
2011-10-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of appellant since the evidence shows that he went to the police station a day after the barangay captain reported the death of Noemar. The presentation by appellant of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent "to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture"[25] which is the essence of voluntary surrender. | |||||
|
2011-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[33] Mere suddenness of the attack does not amount to treachery.[34] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[35] Thus, frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[36] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indemnity for loss of earning capacity is determined by computing the net earning capacity of the victim.[30] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We hold that the circumstantial evidence available was enough to convict accused-appellant. Circumstantial evidence may be competent to establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, and not someone else, was responsible for the killing.[19] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction as long as there is (1) more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20] | |||||
|
2009-04-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and 3) the surrender was voluntary.[24] The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.[25] Without these elements, and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and, therefore, cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to serve as a mitigating circumstance.[26] | |||||
|
2008-11-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of execution.[39] | |||||