This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-06-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In view of the inadmissibility of Zaldy's out-of-court identification and Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession, the prosecution's case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. Conviction can be secured "on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to [a] fair and reasonable conclusion proving that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others."[24] There can be conviction if the prosecution can establish the appellants' participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the accused, and none other, committed the imputed crime.[25] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Saturnino's testimony establishes something that is merely speculative. To be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."[28] To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[29] | |||||
|
2003-07-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for damages, while the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages without need of proof in line with the policy of the Court to award the same in case of violent death,[59] consistent with current case law, the award by the trial court of P100,000.00 should be reduced to P50,000.00.[60] | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In brief, the Court is convinced and so concurs in the conclusion reached by the trial court that the circumstantial evidence presented by prosecution sustains the charges against appellant. When circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of natural and rational circumstances corroborating each other, it cannot be overcome by doubtful evidence submitted by the opposing party.[56] That appellant is the malefactor responsible for the death of Leonil Jimenez and of Rodelyn Roxas has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tends directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[35] For this qualifying circumstance to be considered, it must be established as conclusively as the crime itself.[36] It has been held that for treachery to exist, there must be evidence showing that the mode of attack was consciously or deliberately adopted by the culprit to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate.[37] In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution is bereft of any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victims unfolded considering that the principal witness for the prosecution, Allan Bulaclac, never saw how the victims were actually attacked and killed. In People v. Sambulay,[38] this Court held that treachery cannot be considered if the lone witness for the prosecution did not see the commencement of the assault. Hence, it cannot be concluded that Rafael deliberately adopted a method or mode of attack that deprived the victims of an opportunity to defend themselves. Consequently, absent evidence on the manner as to how the killings were actually perpetrated treachery cannot be considered a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.[39] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| reflected upon his decision to kill the victim.[60] As pointed out in People v. Umayam:[61] "[C]riminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be 'premeditation' but must be 'evident premeditation'."[62] Assayed vis-à-vis the foregoing legal yardsticks, none of the requisites of this aggravating circumstance can be inferred from the facts of this case. For one, the records do not show the time when accused-appellant resolved to commit the crime. The date and, if possible, the | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| victim. Thus, an award of P50,000.00 is proper and reasonable under current case law.[28] Finally, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order, in view of the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Catubig,[29] we held that in criminal cases, exemplary damages in the amount of | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| upon his decision to kill the victim.[23] Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."[24] In the case at bar, none of the requisites of this aggravating circumstance can be inferred from the facts of this case. For one, the records do not show the time when accused-appellant resolved to commit the crime. The date and, if possible, the time when the malefactor | |||||