This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As regards the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is not that there were three, four, or more assailants as against one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[50] While it is true that superiority in number does not per se mean superiority in strength,[51] the appellants in this case did not only enjoy superiority in number, but were armed with a weapon, while the victim had no means with which to defend himself. Thus, there was obvious physical disparity between the protagonists and abuse of superior strength on the part of the appellants.[52] Abuse of superior strength attended the killing when the offenders took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[53] However, the circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated separately, it being necessarily absorbed in treachery.[54] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| While in the appeal of Maximo Rafael (G.R. No. 123176), this Court found that there was no conspiracy between him and his two sons, herein accused-appellants, the conspiracy between the latter having been sufficiently and convincingly established in these cases. Accused-appellants' contention that proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is necessary to establish conspiracy is without any basis in law.[27] For direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, as criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots.[28] Certainly, conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during, and after the commission of the crime.[29] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. There is no doubt that appellant and his co-accused acted in conspiracy because of their concerted actions in attacking and stabbing the victim. Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during, and after the commission of the crime.[63] In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim.[64] Thus, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[65] | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. It cannot be entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also doubtful. If the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction shall of necessity follow, on the basis of his admission of the killing. The question whether the accused acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact properly evaluated by the trial court. Absent any glaring errors bordering on gross misapprehension of the facts or speculative or unsupported conclusions, the findings of the trial court must stand.[25] For this reason, Suyum's claim of self-defense must fail. | |||||