This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| As regards the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, we find that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove the elements thereof, including: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his 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 his act.[33] | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This Court does not however agree with the ruling of the trial court that evident premeditation was attendant in the commission of the crime. Like treachery, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty as the criminal act itself, in order for it to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[34] The prosecution was burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his 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 his act.[35] The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to prove these elements. What was established was that accused-appellant waylaid and suddenly shot Basilio in cold blood while the latter was on his way home from the "tabo." There is, however, no evidence adduced when and how he had planned the killing of the victim. Nor is there proof offered to show how much time had elapsed before the plan was executed. Suffice it to state that without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable they might be, would not be enough to sustain a finding of this aggravating circumstance.[36] In other words, the evidence falls short of proving the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. | |||||
|
2003-02-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the absence of any circumstance that would qualify the crime at bar to murder, accused-appellant can only be held liable for homicide defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal. Considering that there was neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, the penalty has to be imposed in its medium period, ranging from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which is within the range of prision mayor, or 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The maximum thereof is within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. [46] | |||||
|
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. |
||||
| appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[56] These elements are: 1.] the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; 2.] an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his 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 his act.[57] 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.[58] Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning.[59] There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and | |||||
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| qualifying circumstance.[19] Thus, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his 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 his act.[20] 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.[21] Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning.[22] There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected | |||||