This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-10-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, which needs no other proof than the death of the victim.[62] The trial court was, likewise, correct in not awarding actual damages to the said heirs, considering that there were no receipts to support them.[63] The heirs are, nevertheless, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[64] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Crispin Domanico proper without any need of proof other than the fact of death.[27] However, the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with the controlling case law.[28] | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder qualified by treachery. Abuse of superior strength likewise attended the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[41] In this case, the attack on the unarmed victim was sudden. Odilon, without provocation, suddenly placed his arm around the victim's neck and forthwith stabbed the latter. The victim had no inkling that he would be attacked as he was attempting to pacify Edmar and Julian. Ronnie and the appellant, both also armed with deadly weapons, rushed to the scene and stabbed the victim, giving no real opportunity for the latter to defend himself. And even as the victim was already sprawled on the canal, Ronnie bashed his head with a hollow block. The peacemaker became the victim of violence. | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 which needs no proof other than that of the death of the victim.[67] However, the amount of P30,000 moral damages should be increased to P50,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[68] The Court cannot sustain the award of actual damages in the amount of P40,000 considering that there were no receipts presented to support them.[69] Nevertheless, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[70] | |||||
|
2003-02-27 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The trial court also correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, which needs no proof other than that of the death of the victim.[126] | |||||
|
2003-02-21 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Given the factual milieu of the case, this Court is in accord with the trial court's finding that the killing of Basilio was attended by alevosia. This Court has held that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[31] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] As vividly narrated by Rufina and Christopher, the attack on Basilio was sudden. Basilio had no inkling of the impending attack. He was just nonchalantly walking along the road when accused-appellant and his cohort appeared from nowhere and suddenly shot him. Basilio had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack, nor was he in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression because he was unarmed. Moreover, he was fatally shot on the region of the head, at close range, as evidenced by the powder burns found around the victim's gunshot wounds. To ensure the success of their criminal design, accused-appellant and his cohort fired at the victim five times as shown by the five entrance wounds sustained by the victim in different parts of his body. Undoubtedly, the felons deliberately and consciously adopted the means to ensure their criminal purpose without risk to themselves. That the victim may have been shot from the front, as contended by accused-appellant, does not negate alevosia. The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from a victim who is unarmed, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[33] | |||||