This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-03-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The CA also properly awarded civil indemnity as such is given without need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility for it.[18] The trial court, however, failed to award moral damages. Moral damages are awarded without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing.[19] Thus, PhP 50,000 in moral damages is additionally awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim. | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the award of damages, it was proper for the trial court to grant civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of the victim. Civil indemnity in homicide and murder cases requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility for it.[17] The trial court, however, failed to award moral damages. Moral damages is granted without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing.[18] Thus, moral damages of PhP 50,000 is additionally awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim. | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [22] People v. Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819, November 14, 2001, 368 SCRA 586, 610. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The Medico-Legal Report and testimony of Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat show that Imee's hymen had deep fresh hymenal lacerations which could have been caused by a penetration of an erect penis. The injuries all over her body were inflicted by appellant as she struggled to resist his attack. Undoubtedly, the above circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant, to the exclusion of any other person, perpetrated the crime charged.[34] The sequence of events, as established by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, negates the possibility that a person other than the appellant committed the crime. Indeed, the combination of all these circumstances, or circumstantial evidence, produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of rape.[35] | |||||
|
2003-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Was the offense murder or only homicide? The trial court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. On this point, we are in agreement. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. [59] In the present case, the victim was a woman with a smaller build. She was unarmed. Appellant was a fifty-one-year-old male, in the prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. The killing indubitably constitutes an instance of abuse of superior strength, hence the offense is qualified to murder, and not merely homicide. | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed. In murder, the grant of civil indemnity which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility therefor.[51] | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Whisenhunt,[17] the Court expounded on this matter thus:"While it may be true that there was no eyewitness to the death of [the victim], the confluence of the testimonial and physical evidence against accused-appellant creates an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that naturally leads to the fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant was the author of the crime, to the exclusion of all others. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to in proving the identity of the accused when direct evidence is not available, otherwise felons would go scot-free and the community would be denied proper protection."[18] The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, when the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused -- to the exclusion of all others -- as the guilty person.[19] The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that guilt cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. Establishing it is akin to weaving a tapestry of events that culminate in a vivid depiction of the crime of which the accused is the author.[20] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In sum, the Court finds that the trial court did not err in upholding the version of the prosecution and disregarding the defenses put up by accused-appellants. Though Merolina did not see the actual shooting of her husband, the circumstantial evidences presented by the prosecution are sufficient to sustain a conviction. Under the Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[29] Here, more than one circumstance was presented by the prosecution. The victim's wife heard gunshots from underneath their house. Immediately thereafter, she peeped through their bamboo flooring and saw the three accused-appellants sitting on their heels and looking upwards. Accused-appellant Tomas Coca, Jr. was holding a gun pointed upwards while seated between accused-appellants Ricardo and Ramil Coca. When she turned to her husband, she saw that he was shot. As the three accused-appellants fled, prosecution witness Alexander Singson saw them running away from the house of the victim. All these, added to accused-appellants' previous altercation with the victim, form an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to accused-appellants, and no other, as the persons responsible for the victim's death. | |||||