This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-02-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy having been established, evidence as to who delivered the fatal blow is no longer indispensable. Hence, it is immaterial if Caballero's role was merely to signal the gunmen and Alvarez's, to act as back-up. Each of the offender is equally guilty of the criminal act since in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.[15] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While no evidence was presented to show that appellants met beforehand and came to an agreement to harm Joseph, their concerted acts before, during and after the incident all point to a unity of purpose and design. Indeed, "proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices."[45] Such proof "may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest."[46] | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant also failed to attribute any improper motive to Valenciano to falsely testify against him. There was no evidence to establish that Valenciano harbored any ill-will against appellant or that he had reasons to fabricate his testimony. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the witness was not moved by any ill-will and was untainted by bias, and thus worthy of belief and credence.[38] Furthermore, appellant's immediate departure from the scene of the crime and successful effort to elude arrest until his apprehension more than five years later are not consistent with his claim of innocence. Flight from the scene of the crime and failure to immediately surrender militate against appellant's contention of innocence "since an innocent person will not hesitate to take prompt and necessary action to exonerate himself of the crime imputed to him."[39] | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| As Sombol failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression, his plea of self-defense necessarily fails. Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for self-defense to be appreciated.[30] Without unlawful aggression, the accused has nothing to prevent or repel, and there is then no basis for appreciating the other two requisites.[31] | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[43] For alevosia to qualify the crime to Murder, it must be shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[44] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: "(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages."[21] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court modifies the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[40] said award is increased to P75,000.00. Anent the award of moral damages, the CA correctly imposed the amount of P50,000.00.[41] These "awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide."[42] | |||||