This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-03-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the presence of four (4) gunshot wounds on Butad's body negates the claim that the killing was justified but instead indicates a determined effort to kill him. Even assuming that it was Butad who initiated the attack, the fact that petitioner was able to wrest the gun from him signifies that the aggression which Butad had started already ceased. Petitioner became the unlawful aggressor when he continued to shoot Butad even as he already lay defenseless on the ground.[30] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Moreover, the defense has not shown any reason why Edgar, who corroborated Liza's testimony about the incident, would perjure himself to pin down Rufino. Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.[18] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven. In the instant case, the victim's income at the time of his death was sufficiently proven not only by the testimony of the victim's wife, but by the duly authenticated Service Record,[39] of the victim. The formula[40] for computing the deceased's loss of earning capacity is as follows: Net = Life expectancy x Gross Annual Income (GAI) - Living expenses | |||||