This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-06-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court, likewise, erred in not awarding exemplary damages. Exemplary damages must be awarded too in accordance with Article 2230[87] of the Civil Code, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present. Current case law pegged it at P25,000.[88] | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The Court sustains the argument of the appellants that no treachery attended the killing of Pagapulan. Contrary to the asseverations of the appellee, we must distinguish the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery from abuse of superior strength. Although treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength when both are attendant to the crime committed, the presence of one of these circumstances does not necessarily automatically result in the presence of the other. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by aggressors on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressors.[36] In the case at bar, the victim Pagapulan had sufficient warning of the appellants' nefarious intentions against him. Even before they reached Cristeta's house, they had already been bellowing their threats to kill him. Perhaps out of concern for his daughter and grandchildren, Pagapulan chose to stay and hide, instead of fleeing. Later, when the aggressors were threatening to climb the stairs into the house to ferret him out, it was also his choice to face them unarmed. Whether or not he removed his white shirt to prepare himself to fight the appellants is no longer of any significance at this point, as what is important is that he had sufficient warning of the threat to his life. Even if the first blow was landed from behind him by appellant Jenelito Ibañez, Pagapulan was fully cognizant that he and the others were encircling him to attack. There was no treachery involved. | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto is proper. No other proof is needed for such other than the death of the victim.[64] | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[19] Unlawful aggression is present when peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent.[20] | |||||