This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In People v. Galapin,[73] People v. Continente,[74] United States v. Lasada,[75] People v. Mobe,[76] People v. Irinea,[77] People v. Rillorta,[78] People v. Cagalingan,[79] People v. Villanueva,[80] People v. Magno,[81] People v. del Rosario,[82] People v. Yrat,[83] People v. Saul,[84] and People v. Tamayo,[85] the principal and accomplice were ordered to pay jointly and severally the entire amount of the civil indemnity awarded to the victim. In People v. Sotto,[86] the accomplice was ordered to pay half of the amount of civil indemnity imposed by the trial court, while the principal was liable for the other half. In People v. Toring,[87] the principal, accomplice and the accessory were made jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the civil indemnity. | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength cannot likewise be appreciated for it was not alleged in the information.[58] Even if alleged, it cannot qualify the killing of Eduardo. In People v. Flores,[59] this Court pointed out that this aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, gender, the physical size and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that assailants utilized any notorious inequality to their advantage. In other words, mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[60] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.[63] It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a person.[64] In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety. | |||||
|
2001-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of the witnesses.[7] The eyewitnesses were not shown to have any ill feeling or resentment against accused-appellant as to prevaricate and impute upon him a heinous crime. Besides, how do we account for Romulo Antonio, a mere chance witness, who not only fingerpointed Tio as the assailant but whose account of the incident dovetailed with those of the other eyewitnesses as to the manner and time of the killing? | |||||