This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Likewise weakening accused-appellant's contention that he acted in self-defense was his behavior immediately after the incident. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant himself admitted that upon seeing the victim lying on the ground, he boarded a jeep to go to his sister's place in San Pascual, Batangas before moving to Bicol where he hid from the authorities for several years. The accused-appellant's flight negates his plea of self-defense and indicates his guilt.[24] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Since petitioners did not object to the offer of said documentary evidence on time, it is now too late in the day for them to question its admissibility. The rule is that evidence not objected may be deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[33] This is true even if by its nature, the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.[34] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The computation of the trial court with respect to lost earning capacity is correct. At the time of her death, the victim was 22 years old. She had been earning P6,500.00 monthly. Loss of earning capacity is computed by applying the following formula:[31] | |||||
|
2006-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Passion and obfuscation similarly cannot be appreciated in favor of appellant. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.[34] The bare assertion that the victim and appellant had an argument does not provide justifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance. The cause that produced the passion and obfuscation has not been established nor proven by clear and convincing evidence.[35] The defense advances mere speculations and conjectures to gloss over the fact that there is lack of proof of the cause. Courts are not permitted to render judgments upon guesses or surmises. Suspicion, it has been said, cannot give probative force to testimony which in itself is insufficient to establish or justify an inference of a particular fact.[36] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A final word on the civil liability. An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not. Therefore, we delete the award of P50,000.00 as actual damages. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable. Since the prosecution did not present receipts to prove the actual losses suffered, such actual damages cannot be awarded.[74] | |||||
|
2005-06-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[12] The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[13] | |||||
|
2005-06-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Self-defense, as espoused by petitioner, can be so readily claimed by an accused even if false. It is normally asserted with promptness if true so that the failure to do so upon surrendering to the police is inconsistent with the claim of self-defense.[16] The records clearly show that petitioner gave no indication that he acted in self-defense when he surrendered to the police more than two months after the killing.[17] And before they testified in court, neither his wife nor sister-in-law ever mentioned that Sullon acted in self-defense.[18] Nestor Sullon by his own testimony also disclosed that he fled to Mlang, North Cotabato and stayed there for two months and eleven days from the time of the commission of the offense until his voluntary surrender on December 7, 1993.[19] His act of fleeing from the scene of the crime instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities is contrary to his proclaimed innocence.[20] Self-defense is not credible in the face of the flight of petitioner-accused from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities about the incident.[21] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The computation of the trial court with respect to lost earning capacity needs correction. At the time of his death, Domingo Adelan was 37 years old. Loss of earning capacity is computed using the following formula:[38] | |||||