This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner went up to the CA on certiorari, assailing the November 28, 2008 and July 27, 2009 Resolutions of the NLRC. The Petition[18] in CA-G.R. SP No. 111098 contained a verification and certification of non-forum shopping that was executed and signed not by petitioner, but by his counsel Atty. Ronald Mark S. Daos. | |||||
|
2014-06-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Essentially, petitioner in his Petition and Reply[26] argues that if, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, a party is unable to sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping, he could execute a special power of attorney authorizing his lawyer to execute the verification and sign the certification on his behalf. Which is exactly what petitioner did: he executed a special power of attorney in favor of his counsel, Atty. Daos, authorizing the latter to file the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 111098 and thus sign the verification and certification against forum-shopping contained therein. Petitioner asserts that, going by the dispositions of the Court in past controversies,[27] the said procedure is allowed. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Like any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[59] To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution is tasked to show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[60] Evident premeditation is not presumed from the mere lapse of time.[61] It may only be appreciated when the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and deliberate reflection upon the resolution to carry out the felonious intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[62] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| "The prosecution is burdened to prove that the malefactors had decided to commit a crime and performed an `act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung' to a previous determination to kill. It must be shown that there was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to kill. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious. In the absence of clear and positive evidence proving this aggravating circumstance, mere presumptions and inferences thereon, no matter how logical or probable, would not be enough."[22] Hence, for the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be evidence to prove that the crime committed was a result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt. | |||||