This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We cannot appreciate treachery against appellant. There is no treachery where the sudden attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.[25] There was no sufficient evidence that appellant deliberately adopted the means of execution employed by him. What is apparent is that appellant perpetrated the killing impulsively.[26] For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. The prosecution must adduce conclusive proof as to the manner in which the altercation started and resulted in the death of the victim. If the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, the crime committed is homicide and not murder.[27] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[81] In order to qualify an act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.[82] Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.[83] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the only evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that there was treachery was the testimony of Edgar Fuentes that while Jose and Carlito were grappling, he saw appellant and his son emerge from the thick banana plantation and attack Jose with the bolos they were carrying. This, alone, does not prove treachery. In People vs. Albao,[19] we held that:As a rule a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery, if such mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply, however, where the sudden attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim, or where their meeting was purely accidental. | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the civil liability of accused-appellant, the award of exemplary damages is improper there being no aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime.[36] On the other hand, moral damages should have been awarded since it may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries or death.[37] The deceased's mother, Merlyn, testified that she cannot accept the death of her child.[38] Mental anguish is certainly caused by the untimely demise of one's own blood relative especially a young daughter, thus justifying the award of moral damages. | |||||
|
2001-06-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court held accused-appellants solidarily liable to the heirs of Gabitan for P200,000.00, and another P20,000.00 each to Juvith Cerilles and Edward Villaflor as indemnity. In murder, the civil indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00.[53] The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of appellants' responsibility therefor.[54] On the other hand, the separate award of moral damages is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries or death.[55] The amount of moral damages is also fixed at P50,000.00 for murder.[56] For the less serious physical injuries, moral damages of P10,000.00 shall be sufficient. Exemplary damages can be granted only in cases where there is an aggravating circumstance.[57] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A final comment on the damages. The award of P4,800.00 by the appellate court as actual damages for the funeral-related expenses of the victim is supported by receipts and should be allowed.[30] The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence[31] and is likewise upheld. Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries or, as in this case, the victim's death.[32] Further, considering the circumstances of this case, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Salvador Montefrio is, in our view, reasonable and justified. Thus, no reversible error may be imputed to the appellate court. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In this case, the prosecution proved that appellant fired at the back of the victim. It was not able to show, however, that appellant had deliberately adopted the attack, considering that it was executed during a commotion and as a result of it. Moreover, it could not be said that the attack was without risk to himself, because the victim was then in the company of three other persons, all of whom were alert and one was even armed. Indeed, the Court has held thus:[20] | |||||
|
2000-07-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Moral damages awarded by the trial court should be increased to P50,000.00, considering the mental suffering experienced by the family of the victim for the untimely death of the only member of the family who finished schooling. Moral damages, which include physical suffering and mental anguish, may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries or the victim's death, as in this case.[29] | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim. Anent moral damages, the victim's widow testified that the death of her husband left her with six children to support, thus, she does not know what to do. Moral damages which include physical suffering and mental anguish, may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries and the victim's death as in this case.[16] | |||||