This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-09-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Here, appellant's intent to kill SPO4 Santiago Miguel became manifest only after provocative insults were hurled by the victim. Appellant had no set plan to commit the crime as a fruit of mature deliberation. Furthermore, as the OSG observed, no sufficient time had elapsed for appellant to weigh the consequences of his actions. We likewise find no showing of deliberate preparations by appellant to kill P/Insp. Miguel and PO3 Arabejo. Recall that appellant immediately returned to the police station armed with his service revolver after he was ordered to go home by his superior officer. When there is no showing how and when the plan to kill was decided or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, there is no evident premeditation.[49] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 2211-142, the lower court ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of the late P/Insp. Edgardo Miguel P78,000.00 as actual damages and P500,000.00 as moral damages. However, only a receipt of the Basilan Memorial Chapel for P20,000.00[55] was presented. Actual damages may only be awarded for expenses duly supported by receipts.[56] In this case then, actual damages should be only P20,000.00. Likewise, we find P500,000.00 for moral damages excessive. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, P50,000.00 should be adequate.[57] In addition, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is also automatically awarded to the heirs without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[58] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We think, however, that treachery and evident premeditation were not duly proven in this case. Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of the accused.[50] In this case, since no eyewitness was presented, the manner in which the killing was committed was not proven. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We agree that evident premeditation cannot be taken against accused-appellant as there was no proof to show (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender time to reflect on the consequences of his act.[49] Where there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.[50] Accused-appellant mistakenly thinks, however, that the trial court appreciated evident premeditation in the commission of the crime when the fact is that it did not. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, complete or incomplete, the onus probandi is shifted to accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence all the elements of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[15] The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence since he admits the commission of the alleged criminal act.[16] | |||||