This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The appellate court relied on our ruling in People v. Penesa[94] in finding that the four accused should be held guilty only of slight physical injuries. According to the CA, because of "the death of the victim, there can be no precise means to determine the duration of the incapacity or medical attendance required."[95] The reliance on Penesa was utterly misplaced. A review of that case would reveal that the accused therein was guilty merely of slight physical injuries, because the victim's injuries neither caused incapacity for labor nor required medical attendance.[96] Furthermore, he did not die.[97] His injuries were not even serious.[98] Since Penesa involved a case in which the victim allegedly suffered physical injuries and not death, the ruling cited by the CA was patently inapplicable. | |||||