This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| might make.[42] It is settled that there is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping[43] or had just awakened,[44] because in such cases the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense. However, the prosecution must still establish how the attack commenced.[45] When Mrs. Bates went out of the house to call Danilo, she saw appellant already attacking her son who was lying on the bench. She claimed that her son was sleeping, but presented no evidence to show that he was actually asleep when attacked and thus had no opportunity to defend himself. Where no particulars are known regarding the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the victim's death began and developed, it cannot be established from mere supposition that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.[46] Any doubt as to the existence of the treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[47][47] Note that the information also alleged "evident premeditation." Our perusal of the records, however, fails to disclose any factual basis for the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Motive is not an essential element of a crime,[45] particularly of murder.[46] It becomes relevant only where there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the commission of a crime.[47] Stated otherwise, proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an accused's participation in an offense is circumstantial.[48] A careful perusal of the State's evidence reveals that the prosecution had established sufficient motive why appellants killed the victim, independent of any grudge which Navales may have had against the latter. At the time of the incident, appellants Abriol and Dosdos were both BBRC detention prisoners during Navales' term as warden. Abriol and Dosdos were treated as highly favored "trustees" of Navales and were never locked up. Abriol and Dosdos were even allowed to go out of BBRC to do the marketing for the prison's kitchen. Appellant Astellero, a former detention prisoner, was also a recipient of Navales' favors. Navales hired Astellero as his personal driver after the latter served his sentence. Navales and the victim, a former BBRC jailguard, were associates in dealing with prohibited drugs, until they had a falling out allegedly after the victim failed to remit to Navales proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs amounting to P31,000. Appellants apparently killed the victim to return the "special favors" Navales had showered them. Lack of a motive does not necessarily preclude conviction. Persons have been killed or assaulted for no reason at all, and friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime.[49] | |||||
|
2001-09-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Wharton suggests four basic guidelines in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, (1) it should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.[17] The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is far more like puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing towards the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.[18] | |||||
|
2001-08-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants' defense is alibi. The rule is that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[25] In addition, accused-appellants were within a few meters from where the victim was assaulted, thus negating the requirement that for alibi to be successfully invoked, it must be impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[26] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification, accused-appellant merely offers alibi as a defense. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently established by eyewitnesses.[43] For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that he could not have been physically present at the place where the crime was committed or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[44] While accused-appellant in this case testified that he was at home at around 11:30 in the evening of May 9, 1998, he admitted that his house was just a block away from where the fair was held.[45] Considering how near he was to the place where the crime was committed, accused-appellant's alibi cannot be given any value. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| There is no doubt that conspiracy attended the killing of Gomersindo. For conspiracy to exist it does not require an appreciable period lapsed prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose.[16] | |||||