This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-05-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| For failure of the prosecution to prove treachery or any other circumstance that would qualify the killing to murder, the Court finds that appellant should only be held liable for homicide.[41] The penalty imposed for homicide in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Considering the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and applying in his favor the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months and one day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.[42] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| For failure of the prosecution to prove treachery or any other circumstance which would qualify the killing to murder, appellant should only be held liable for the crime of homicide.[36] Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering that there was neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime, the penalty has to be imposed in the medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should therefore be sentenced to suffer the penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.[37] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant Paul Tagana testified that after inflicting one stab wound on Celestino, the latter ran away but he still chased Celestino and upon catching up with him, he stabbed him several times. At this point, Paul Tagana could no longer invoke self-defense in killing the victim because at that moment when Celestino ran away, unlawful aggression on the part of Celestino had already ceased. It is settled that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise retaliation and not self-defense is committed.[41] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Treachery is present when these conditions concur: (1) the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[77] Like other circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility, it cannot rest on mere conjecture but must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. It is not sufficient that the attack was sudden and unexpected. It must also be shown that the aggressor consciously adopted the mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.[78] | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that when an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense; and as the burden of the evidence is thus shifted to him, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[39] | |||||
|
2003-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In addition to the civil indemnity, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to moral damages. Lita de Guzman testified that the death of her husband caused her sadness, fright and sleepless nights.[70] Recent jurisprudence fixes the award of moral damages at P50,000.00[71] and therefore the amount of P100,000.00 must accordingly be reduced. | |||||