This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| This contention has no merit. In order to consider the defense of fulfillment of a duty, it must be shown that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office.[30] There was no showing that petitioners should resort to inflicting injuries and even to the extent of killing the victims as there was no resistance at all from them when they were apprehended. The two victims were handcuffed and unarmed while the petitioners and the other police officers were armed with pistols and a rifle. Aida Veloria Magsipoc, Supervising Forensic Chemist of the NBI, per Chemistry Report No. C-89-1606, conducted the paraffin test on George Go and Shi Shu Yang which yielded negative results, thus showing that the victims never fired a gun and were totally defenseless in the face of the fully armed police officers. | |||||
|
2006-12-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We view this as an attempt on the part of Marcial to avail of the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of performing a duty under paragraph 1, Article 13,[19] in relation to paragraph 5, Article 11,[20] of the Revised Penal Code. We must stress that there are two requisites for this justifying circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.[21] These two requisites are wanting in this case. The victim was not committing any offense at the time and killing him under the circumstances of this case cannot in any wise be considered a valid performance of a lawful duty by a barangay captain. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon by the victim himself.[42] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Q And you also know the accused Fausto Obedo very well? A Yes, Sir, because they are friends. Q They are close friends, as a matter of fact, Fausto Obedo and your deceased brother, Wilfredo Luayon? A I do not know if they are close friends but I know that they are friends. . . . Q Once you mentioned only the name Fausto Obedo as one of those who jumped out of the window of the house of the deceased brother of yours, when did you decide to tell or to reveal the name of Fausto Obedo as one of those who jumped out of the window? A I would like to tell it before but I was not asked. . . . Q You said you were not asked by the investigator who were the suspects who jumped out of the window, why did you state in your affidavit that there were two (2) malefactors who jumped out of the window if you were not asked? ATTY. ARAFOL: Your Honor please, before the witness answer, counsel is referring a question from the record in the sworn statement. May we ask what paragraph? ATTY. RAMA: Paragraph 5 of the question and answer thereto. ATTY. ARAFOL: Paragraph 5 speaks for itself. It is a question what transpired next. There is no identity, there is no question as to how many persons jumped out. . . COURT: I will allow that question. WITNESS: A I did not mention it because I was not asked about the name of that person who jumped out.[38] (Underscoring ours) This explanation is too lame to be accepted. The question posed by the investigator to Dominador called for a narration of what Dominador knew about the incident. He voluntarily gave the information that he saw two persons jump out of the window and yet, strangely enough, although he knew appellant and Ranalan very well,[39] he did not mention their names. It casts serious doubt on the credibility of Dominador as a prosecution witness. The identity of the malefactors is too important a detail for anyone who allegedly witnessed the incident to overlook its omission in the very statement of the incident one is giving.[40] The omissions strongly and indubitably indicate Dominador's actual ignorance of the real identity of the perpetrators of the crime. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be overemphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence demands not only that the prosecution prove that a crime has been committed but, more importantly, the identity of the person or persons who committed the crime.[49] In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence failed to meet the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary for conviction in a criminal case to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded by the Constitution to an accused. | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant is found GUILTY of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as minimum; to 14 years eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, he shall pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P39,000 as actual damages.[40] No costs. | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal in any of its periods, the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. There being one aggravating circumstance present, without any mitigating circumstance to offset it, the penalty to be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty that should be imposed on the appellant must be taken from the maximum period of reclusion temporal, while the minimum must be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. The award of actual damages in the amount of P306,939.02, is evidenced by receipts and should be maintained. However, the award of P200,000 as moral damages should be reduced to P50,000, in line with existing jurisprudence.[30] In view of the presence of | |||||