This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-10-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This contention deserves no merit. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that people react differently when confronted with a frightful occurrence. Some may react violently while others may exhibit nonchalance or even boredom. "[T]he settled rule is that witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn. Different people react differently to a given situation. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience."[43] | |||||
|
2004-02-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Appellant calls attention to the delay in Mariaca's volunteering to testify which, so he contends, betrays Mariaca's ulterior motives. Appellant's contention is untenable. This Court has repeatedly noted that witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn. Different people react differently to a given situation, for there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[18] The reluctance of eyewitnesses to testify on a crime and to get involved in a criminal investigation is but normal and does not by itself affect the witnesses' credibility.[19] | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity awarded by the trial court for the death of David Galvez should be reduced to P50,000.00, pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence.[30] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 may be additionally awarded to the heirs of the victim without need for proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[31] The award of P57,000.00 as actual damages for the hospitalization and medical expenses incurred by Salvador Galvez, Jr., being amply supported by receipts,[32] is sustained. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| of actual damages cannot rest on the bare allegation of the heirs of the victim. Failure to substantiate such claim negates the award for actual damage.[12] The award of exemplary damages must likewise be deleted considering the absence of any aggravating circumstance. Thus, the heirs of Felix Taylaran are only entitled to P50,000.00 as moral damages, which needs no proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[13] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 3, in Criminal Case No. 9694, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Frank Lobrigas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide for the death of Felix | |||||