This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As to the killing of Rosita, neither treachery nor evident premeditation was present considering that she was able to parry the first thrust of appellant and ran away outside the house, and there is no evidence proving that appellant determined to commit the crime even as Melody recounted that she saw his father sharpening his bolo before they slept the previous night. Evident premeditation needs proof of the time when the intent to commit the crime is engendered in the mind of the accused, the motive which gives rise to it, and the means which are beforehand selected to carry out that intent. All such facts and antecedents which make notorious the pre-existing design to accomplish the criminal purpose must be proven to the satisfaction of the court.[45] There is paucity of evidence as to the time, motive and the means chosen by appellant to carry out the intent to kill his entire family. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court was correct in sentencing appellant to the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua[46] in Criminal Case No. 4077. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was, likewise, properly appreciated. Petitioner was humiliated in front of his guests and kin in his own house. It is settled, however, that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance.[18] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [76] People of the Philippines v. Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 9, 16. | |||||