This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength to be appreciated, we have repeatedly held that the prosecution must show that the accused were physically stronger than the victim, and that they abused such superiority by taking advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense.[31] In the present case, we find that appellants and their 11 confederates took advantage of their collective strength to inflict fatal injuries upon the victim by rendering him defenseless and preventing his escape from the attackers. The unarmed victim could not match the combined strength of the 13 maulers. Appellants Drew and Ramos, who were armed with a wooden club and a lead pipe, respectively, reduced the unarmed victim into helplessness. The weapons used by appellants negated any defense the victim could put up. Alone and unarmed, the victim was no match to appellants and their co-accused. Thus, we agree that the circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength qualified the killing to murder, and no error could be attributed to the trial court on this score. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the award of damages, however, modification is called for. The trial court awarded a total of P91,875 as civil indemnity, P41,875 as actual expenses incurred by the heirs of the victim and P50,000 as death indemnity. But the records reveal that only P10,660 of the actual expenses were properly supported by receipts.[37] This being the case, we can only award P10,660 as the actual damages properly and adequately proved.[38] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| It appears, however, that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in accused-appellant Antonio L. Samudio's favor. To be thus considered, three (3) requisites must be proven, namely, (a) the offender had not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrender himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender was voluntary.[40] From the record, it is evident that accused-appellant Antonio L. Samudio's surrender satisfied the requisites. When accused-appellant Antonio L. Samudio went to the house of Angeles Clopino following his outburst before Ruben San Juan in Ely's house, he requested Clopino to fetch Barangay Captain Domingo Tarnate as he wanted to surrender to the authorities, and when the CAFGU members arrived, he voluntarily surrendered to them and handed the knife he used in stabbing the victim, Baldomero San Juan.[41] SPO2 Ramon Tugay, a witness for the prosecution, confirmed accused-appellant's testimony on his voluntary surrender.[42] | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (1) community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.[26] In this case, appellant's acts of going to Gloria's house with his sons and his encouraging shouts clearly demonstrated his concurrence in their aggressive design and lent support to their nefarious intent and afforded moral and material support to their attack against the victims. Hence, we are convinced he must be held liable as accomplice in the commission of the crimes. | |||||