This case has been cited 16 times or more.
|
2013-02-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Secretary of Justice has decided in accordance with the dictates of our jurisprudence in overturning the investigating prosecutors and ordering Salapuddin's exclusion from the Information. The Secretary cannot plausibly be found culpable of grave abuse of his discretion. The appellate court has committed a reversible error in holding otherwise. As a matter of fact, the CA has failed to capture the import of Our ruling in People v. Listerio[143] in supporting its general declaration that "the totality of evidence"[144] indicates Salapuddin's participation in the conspiracy. The appellate court held: [T]he totality of evidence sufficiently indicates the probability that Salapuddin lent moral and material support or assistance to the perpetrators or assistance to the perpetrators in the commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2012-09-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[12] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Melody is likewise entitled to the sum of P11,025.00 as cost of her treatment and hospitalization. Anent actual or compensatory damages, it bears stressing that only substantiated and proven expenses or those which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized by the courts.[48] Prosecution witness Lourdes Amlag testified that the family incurred expenses in connection with the funeral, wake and burial, totalling P21,255.00, as shown in the itemized list submitted to the trial court.[49] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Apart from treachery, in our view, the manner by which the appellants killed Gomez clearly demonstrates a conspiracy, thereby making each of them equally liable for the offense.[20] There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[21] To establish the existence of conspiracy, direct proof is not essential.[22] Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.[23] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have held that the trial judge is the best and the most competent person who can weigh and evaluate the testimonies of witnesses.[47] Likewise, the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand.[48] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Intent to kill is the principal element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder.[47] Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.[48] The testimonies of the doctors who treated Gloria did not establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth and severity of the wounds sustained by her. Such medical evidence could have shed light as to the relative position of Aradillos and Gloria at the time the blows were inflicted, whether the wounds sustained by the victim were a result of an intentional infliction or accidental, or whether it was mortal or superficial. In People vs. Matyaong,[49] the Court discussed the importance of ascertaining the degree of injury sustained by a victim, viz.:In considering the extent of injury done, account must be taken of the injury to the function of the various organs, and also the danger to life. A division into mortal and nonmortal wounds, if it could be made, would be very desirable; but the unexpected complications and the various extraneous causes which give gravity to the simplest cases, and, on the other hand, the favorable termination of some injuries apparently the most dangerous, render any such classification impracticable. The general classification into slight, severe, dangerous, and mortal wounds may be used, but the possibility of the slight wound terminating with the loss of the person's life, and the apparently mortal ending with only a slight impairment of some function, must always be kept in mind. . . . | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the heirs are not entitled to damages for the lost earnings of the victim for lack of factual basis. The estimate given by the victim's widow on his income as a businessman is not supported by competent evidence, like income tax returns or receipts. Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and as such, requires due proof thereof.[54] In short, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income.[55] In this case, the victim's widow merely gave a self-serving statement of her deceased husband's income, hence, unreliable. | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, no overt act was established to prove that appellant shared with and concurred in the criminal design of Osabel, Dador and Purcino. Assuming that she had knowledge of the conspiracy or she acquiesced in or agreed to it, still, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime in furtherance of the conspiracy, mere knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate is not sufficient to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy.[18] Conspiracy transcends mere companionship.[19] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As regards conspiracy, direct proof is not essential as conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.[60] In the case at bar, it was shown that the accused entered the victim's house together, armed with bladed weapons. In unison, they left the house carrying the victim.[61] The medico-legal report on the victim indicates that the victim suffered six stab wounds, three incised wounds and hematoma. Three of the stab wounds were penetrating stab wounds.[62] On cross-examination, PNP Major Florante Baltazar, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim, testified that, according to his measurements, more than one instrument was used in inflicting the stab and incised wounds.[63] In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, the existence of conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[64] The existence of conspiracy among all the accused-appellants was sufficiently established by the evidence presented. Thus, all the three accused-appellants are held liable for the killing of Nicanor Solis. | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| misconstrued which could destroy the veracity and truthfulness of her testimony. Witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court is sufficient to support a conviction.[38] Against her positive identification, all appellant can offer is the inherently weak defense of denial and alibi. His defense has no leg to stand on. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the testimonies of eyewitnesses positively identifying appellants as among the offenders and detailing their participation in the offense, all that appellants could offer as a defense is bare denial and alibi. The meaning of the word "alibi" is "elsewhere"[29] and for it to prosper, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) he was in another place at the time the offense was perpetrated; and (2) it would be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[30] Appellants failed to discharge this burden. Hunters Street where Drew lived and Taguko area where Ramos allegedly was sleeping on the night of the incident are both in Tatalon Estate which also includes the area of Sto. Domingo and Araneta Avenue. From the houses where appellants claimed they were at the place of the incident in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City, will take no more than ten minutes of jeepney or car ride. Neither Ramos nor Drew showed by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to go from their sleeping quarters to the locus criminis at the time of the mauling of the victim. Thus, appellants' defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over their positive identification by eyewitnesses who saw them at the scene of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 3412-R, wherein appellant was indicted for frustrated murder, the trial court convicted appellant of attempted murder on the ground that the injuries suffered by Palpal-latoc were superficial. There is evidence, however, that were it not for timely medical assistance, Palpal-latoc would have also died like Deguerto. Dr. Ordoñez testified that the through and through wound on the left thigh sustained by Palpal-latoc as a result of stabbing was sufficient to cause his death had this wound and his other injuries been left untreated. In other words, the thigh wound would have been fatal without anti-tetanus injection. Moreover, it must be stressed that it is not the gravity of the wounds alone which determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed and the objective phase has been reached. As held in People v. Listerio:[15] | |||||
|
2001-07-17 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We brush aside appellant's contention that the testimony of Lopez regarding his identification of Porras is not corroborated by any other evidence.[92] It is settled that witnesses are to be weighed not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused.[93] The testimony of a sole witness, if found convincing and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[94] Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.[95] | |||||
|
2001-06-21 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| As regards the injuries sustained by the two children we find that the crime committed are two counts of slight physical injuries. The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or homicide and such intent is made manifest by the acts of the accused which are undoubtedly intended to kill the victim.[45] In a case wherein the accused did not know that a person was hiding behind a table who was hit by a stray bullet causing superficial injuries requiring treatment for three days, the crime committed is slight physical injuries.[46] In case of doubt as to the homicidal intent of the accused, he should be convicted of the lesser offense of physical injuries.[47] We have earlier pointed out that the intent to kill is absent in this case. It was also found that one small metallic fragment was extracted from Kenneth below his left eye while another fragment was extracted from Kevin "immediately below the level of his skin before the cheek bone".[48] An examination of the testimonies of the attending physicians, showed that the wounds sustained by the two children from the metallic fragments are not in themselves fatal but may cause death if left untreated. One of the attending physician testified in court that the fragments themselves "will not cause complication, it is the entry of the fragment" or the open wound that is susceptible to infection.[49] Two small fragments were no longer extracted from the face of Kevin Valdez, as the doctor deemed it to be without danger of complication.[50] We note that the various sizes of the metallic fragments were not established, at least to give an indication of the severity of the wounds sustained. Both children were discharged after six days of treatment and there is no showing that they required subsequent treatment or that they were immobilized for a greater number of days by reason of the injuries sustained. Considering the nature and location of their injuries and the number of days required for their treatment, we find that the crime committed for the injuries sustained by the children are two counts of slight physical injuries under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes a penalty of arresto menor or imprisonment for 1 to 30 days for injuries sustained that has incapacitated the victim for one to nine days or required medical attendance for the same period. For evident lack of criminal intent to kill the complainant, Noel Andres, as above stated, the information for attempted homicide must fail. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[25] Thus, although the following issues are not assailed by accused-appellant, we deem it prudent to pass upon the same if only to validate the findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Motive is not an essential element of a crime,[22] particularly of murder.[23] Motive assumes relevance only where there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the commission of a crime,[24] meaning proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an accused's guilt is circumstantial.[25] In the instant case the prosecution's evidence is not circumstantial. The eyewitnesses positively and categorically identified appellant as one of four men who fatally shot the victim. As appellant himself submits, there is no reason why the eyewitnesses should testify falsely against him. The positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime by the prosecution eyewitnesses, absent any showing of ill motive on their part must prevail over appellant's alibi.[26] | |||||