This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As for Criminal Case No. 1701, no mitigating and only one (1) aggravating circumstance attends the crime. Although it was stated during trial that the offense was committed in the presence of AAA's children, such fact was not alleged in the information and therefore will not be taken into consideration.[52] Nighttime, though alleged, is not considered aggravating because it neither facilitated the commission of the offense nor was it shown to have been purposely sought by the offender.[53] The fact of AAA's pregnancy during the crime's commission, however, has been alleged and established. This single circumstance aggravates the accused's liability and automatically raises his penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, per Section 6 of RA 9262 and also Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, petitioner Dinamling should be sentenced to a maximum penalty that is derived from prision mayor in its maximum period, which is imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[54] the minimum penalty should come from the penalty one degree lower than prision mayor which is prision correccional, whose range is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.[55] Therefore, this Court modifies the trial court's Order dated September 17, 2009,[56] which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and imposes on petitioner Dinamling an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eleven (11) years of prision mayor as maximum. The trial court's order for petitioner to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is upheld. | |||||
|
2003-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[45] Such proof must be based on external acts that are not merely suspicious but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate planning. The evidence must show the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient.[46] Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.[47] | |||||