This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It should also be remembered that Erdaje escaped from prison after he was duly arraigned. His flight can only be indicative of his guilt. Flight means the act of evading the natural course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest, detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. In jurisprudence, it has always been a strong indication of guilt betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[47] It is hardly consistent with a claim of innocence.[48] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail. For an alibi to be credible and given due weight, one must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense and could not prevail over witnesses' positive identification. The denial of an accused cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[42] Measured against these standards, appellant's alibi that he was at his house when Pascual was killed; and his denial of any participation in David's death, deserve no credence at all. The positive, categorical, and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses must prevail. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We disagree with the trial court's finding that abuse of superior strength, disregard of sex and age, were attendant in the commission of the crime. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now explicitly requires the complaint or information to "state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances." Under the old rule, only the qualifying circumstances were needed to be alleged in order to be considered by the court. The present rules, however, require even the aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the complaint or information. The information in the present case failed to precisely aver that abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex attended the commission of the crime.[41] Although the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000 and it was the old law that was in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, the same may be applied retroactively insofar as it benefits the accused.[42] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The court a quo, however, correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000 on account of the grief and suffering of the victim's heirs.[33] The award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000, as prayed for by the Office of the Solicitor General, refers to cases of rape where the victim dies. The rule is not applicable to cases of robbery with homicide. | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The facts also show that the crime was committed by a band since more than three armed persons took part in its commission.[80] However, we cannot appreciate such circumstance against the appellants for failure of the prosecution to state the same in the Information as required by Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Since the present rule is favorable to the appellants, it shall be given retroactive effect.[81] | |||||