This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2002-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the award by the trial court of moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 must be modified. Moral and exemplary damages rest on different jural foundations and cannot be lumped together as one. Exemplary damages are awarded in criminal offenses only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[28] Since there were no aggravating circumstances in this case, exemplary damages may not be awarded. However, considering the pain and anguish of the victim's family brought about by his death, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified.[29] Finally, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 should be awarded, the same being mandatory upon the finding of the fact of killing.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 12, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant SPO1 Rafael Trapane is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is sentenced to suffer | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Melchor's claim as the sole assailant of the victim is apparently intended to shield his brother Mario from criminal liability, in the words of the trial court, "to offer himself as a sacrificial lamb." In contrast to Melchor, however, the prosecution eyewitnesses do not appear to have any improper motive except to bring the perpetrators of the crimes to justice. Their testimonies, therefore, are entitled to full faith and credence.[30] | |||||
|
2002-02-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We agree with the accused-appellant's contention, considering that the arrest was not one of the instances enumerated in Rule 113, §5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure when an arrest without a warrant may be made not only by a police officer but even by a citizen. However, for this objection to prosper, accused-appellant should have interposed it before entering his plea.[24] As he did not do so, he is now estopped from questioning any defect in the manner his arrest was effected as in fact he not only pleaded to the charge but also participated in the trial.[25] The fact that his arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceeding void and deprive the State of its right to convict him when all the facts point to his culpability.[26] His contention that he was arbitrarily detained for four days must fail. This contention stems from the fact that he was arrested without warrant. | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we note that the trial court failed to award actual damages for burial expenses, which was stipulated by the prosecution and the defense in the amount of P15,000.00.[59] In this connection, we have held that although receipts should ordinarily support claims of actual damages, the same may be awarded where the defense stipulated thereon.[60] Therefore, accused-appellant must be ordered to pay the further amount of P15,000.00, as burial expenses. | |||||
|
2001-11-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[58] These elements are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of their act.[59] The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[60] | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We disagree with the trial court that evident premeditation should be taken against accused-appellant. There was no proof to show (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender time to reflect on the consequences of his act.[40] Where there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.[41] | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[41] These elements are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of their act.[42] The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[43] | |||||