This case has been cited 13 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The essential elements of murder are the following: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[17] All elements are extant herein. | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule that the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses will generally not be disturbed on appeal. The rationale for this doctrine is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the issue, as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[26] The only exceptions to this rule are the following: When patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court; or | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| While the trial court considered dwelling as aggravating circumstance, the information is silent, however, on this matter. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,[61] the qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during trial.[62] Since the procedural rule is favorable to appellant, it must apply to this case. Dwelling ought not be considered to aggravate his offense. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The amount of moral damages should be reduced to P50,000, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, as the purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for the injuries to their feelings and not to enrich them.[62] Award of exemplary damages is justified in view of the gruesome mutilation of the victim's corpse, but the amount thereof should also be reduced to only P25,000, following current case law. | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Modification of the award of damages, however, is in order. In line with current jurisprudence, the amount of P60,000 as civil indemnity is reduced to only P50,000.[46] Moral damages of P100,000 ought likewise to be reduced to P50,000, in view of the purpose for making such award, which is to compensate the heirs of the victim for injuries suffered and not to enrich them.[47] The claim for actual damages in the amount of P20,700, being supported by receipts, is well taken. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Lastly, no evidence was presented to show that eyewitness Expedito Prado was motivated by any ill-will to testify falsely against the appellant. Appellant himself admitted that he had no quarrel with Expedito Prado.[68] Where there is no evidence that a prosecution witness has been actuated by any improper motive and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony of Expedito Prado is entitled to full faith and credit. [69] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| community.[18] The former is not a "weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis the latter."[19] The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[20] "Circumstantial evidence is akin to a tapestry; it should be made up of strands which create a pattern when interwoven."[21] This pattern should be reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time totally inconsistent with the proposition that he or she is innocent.[22] The Rules on Evidence[23] allow conviction by means of circumstantial evidence as follows: | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| qualified the killing to murder because the assailants utilized superiority in number and employed deadly weapons in assaulting the unarmed victims. (People v. Plasencia, 249 SCRA 674). The qualifying circumstance of treachery, however, absorbs abuse of superiority. (People v. Gapasin, G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994). And the settled rule is that where one of the aggravating circumstances is used as a qualifying circumstance, the other shall be used as generic aggravating circumstance.[94] For treachery to exist, the following must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[95] The | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[16] The rule admits of certain exceptions, such as when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.[17] Shirley Blanquisco was very categorical and straightforward in her identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the theft. The inconsistencies cited by petitioner relate only to trivial matters that do not negate or refute her testimony. Blanquisco explained in open | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| or misunderstanding with him as would impel them to wrongly impute to him the commission of the crime.[40] On the contrary, Jenny and Vic Villegas, wife[41] and nephew of the victim respectively, had more reason to ensure that the real perpetrator of the crime be punished if only to avenge the senseless death of the victim. It was unnatural for the victim's relative, interested in vindicating the crime, to falsely accuse somebody other than the real culprit. Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution has been actuated by any improper motive and, absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony given is entitled to full faith and credit.[42] Against the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses, appellant interposed the defense of denial. He claimed that he was there, about four meters away, when the victim was stabbed but it was not him but a certain Pepe Boya who killed the victim. He presented | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| relative, who was interested in vindicating the crime, to falsely accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[51] Moreover, appellant himself admitted that prosecution witnesses Jenny and Vic Villegas had no grudge against or misunderstanding with him as would impel them to wrongly impute to him the commission of the crime.[52] The truth of the matter is that defense witness Porceso Lodong and Jose Boya knew all along that appellant was the prime suspect and that he was at large for a year-and-a-half. And when appellant was finally arrested on January 10, 1998, it was only then that they decided to | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[59] In the case at bar, the trial court correctly appreciated the attendance of treachery in qualifying the offense to murder. The two conditions before treachery may be properly considered in qualifying the offense to murder are: (a) the employment of means, methods or manner of | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| P50,000.00. The purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for injuries to their feelings and not to enrich them.[23] Finally, the award of P13,000.00 for funeral expenses must be deleted. It appears that said amount was based on the contract for funeral services.[24] However, a contract for funeral services is not proof that what was stipulated in the contract was eventually paid. Hence, the contract cannot be considered as proof of the amount of the loss.[25] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in Criminal Case No. C-47707, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant is declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is sentenced to | |||||