This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Following prevailing jurisprudence[90] and in line with controlling policy, the Court finds the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victims proper without any need of proof[91] other than the death of the victim.[92] The award of moral damages by the trial court to the victims' heirs is likewise proper and is pegged at P50,000.00 by controlling case law[93] taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family[94] brought about by his death.[95] | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Murder committed in 1993 is penalized with reclusion temporal maximum to death.[25] Under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, when only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, the maximum period shall be imposed, and whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts may not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law in its maximum period. Considering however, the proscription in the 1987 Constitution on the imposition of death penalty as well as the non-retroactive application of the restored death penalty, the trial court erred in imposing on appellants Tiguman and Paña the death penalty. The crimes in this case were committed prior to the restoration of the Death Penalty Law on December 31, 1993.[26] | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Anent the second assigned error, accused-appellants likewise contend that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. In crimes against persons, treachery exists when the accused employs, means, methods, and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[13] To rule that treachery exists in the commission of the crime it must be shown that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and accused-appellants consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of the attack employed by him.[14] In the instant case, the victim was stabbed on his chest. While the stab wound appears frontal, it was shown that accused-appellants came from behind and yanked the victim's shoulder in order to inflict the fatal blow. The manner of attack was duly proven and the infliction of the stab wound was the result of a deliberate act. The post mortem-examination showed one stab wound, thus- | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Treachery exists when the accused employs means, methods, and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[59] Treachery, like the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[60] | |||||