This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-06-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. But if the declarant or admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial admission, as Yapyuco did in this case, during the trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both accused because then, it is transposed into a judicial admission.[105] It is thus perplexing why, despite the extrajudicial statements of Cunanan, Puno and Yapyuco, as well as the latter's testimony implicating them in the incident, they still had chosen to waive their right to present evidence when, in fact, they could have shown detailed proof of their participation or non-participation in the offenses charged. We, therefore, reject their claim that they had been denied due process in this regard, as they opted not to testify and be cross-examined by the prosecution as to the truthfulness in their affidavits and, accordingly, disprove the inculpatory admissions of their co-accused. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[20] Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary.[21] Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack, so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.[22] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| expect that the family of the victim incurred expenses for the coffin, wake, and burial. The award of civil indemnity of P50,000 for the respective heirs of Demetrio Jr. and Allan is affirmed in line with recent jurisprudence.[71] Civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In addition, the award of loss of earning capacity to the heirs of dela Cruz is proper. Evelyn dela Cruz, wife of the deceased, testified that her husband was the driver of private complainant Clarita Chua, with a monthly earning of P5,000, or an annual income of P60,000.[28] She presented in court a certificate of employment dated February 16, 1998 issued by Clarita and marked as Exh. "N".[29] He was 48 years old when he was killed.[30] His lost earnings are to be computed according to the formula adopted by the Court in several decided cases,[31] to wit: net earning capacity ("X") equals life expectancy[32] multiplied by gross annual income less living expenses.[33] Thus, the victim's lost earning capacity amounted to P640,000 as shown hereunder: X = 2 (80-48) x [P60,000 P30,000] 3 | |||||
|
2000-09-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Further, the increase of compensatory damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 is in order.[31] When death occurs as a result of a crime, an award of P50,000.00 is proper, without need of proof or evidence of damages.[32] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court's award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in line with the prevailing doctrine. The amount is indemnity for the death of the victim and need not be proven. We also find the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages proper considering the mental anguish suffered by the heirs of the victim on account of his death.[16] Likewise proper was the award of P35,000.00 representing actual damages as the same was based on the agreement of the parties.[17] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Thus, in People vs. Alex Pavida, et al., [24] where the accused were charged in two (2) separate informations with "Simple Carnapping" and Murder, the Court convicted them of these two separate crimes, and not "Carnapping in the Aggravated Form," although the facts showed that the accused-appellants killed the driver of the carnapped vehicle in the commission of the carnapping. In the same manner, the accused-appellants herein can only be convicted of, and penalized for, the crimes with which they were charged or those necessarily included therein. Similarly, the death penalty imposed on the accused-appellants for the crime of carnapping cannot also be imposed because the killing of the driver of the carnapped motor vehicle was not alleged in the information. The crime alleged being only carnapping under the second clause of Section 14, the proper penalty to be imposed must not be more than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[25] we hold that the proper penalty to be imposed on each of accused-appellants for carnapping is an indeterminate sentence of 17 years and 4 months, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum. Now, with respect to the crime of murder, since the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not alleged in the information, accused-appellants should be held liable only for the crime of homicide defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of our finding, however, that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing of the victim, the penalty of reclusion temporal provided under said article shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applying again the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellants' sentence shall be within the range of prision mayor, as minimum, and reclusion temporal in its maximum period, as maximum. | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We disagree, however, with the trial court's finding of cruelty. The test for determining the presence of cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering. Consequently, there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before he was killed.[19] The fact that accused-appellant Edson clobbered and kicked Alfredo before firing at him does not, to our mind, convincingly show sadism intended to prolong Alfredo dela Cruz' agony before he was finally killed. | |||||