This case has been cited 11 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On account of the fact that Severino was just casually conversing with Vicente at that time, his defenses were down. Naturally, Severino was too stunned by the suddenness of the first stab blow at his back. As a result, the victim could no longer recover from the initial attack and the other two stab blows inflicted made it more difficult for Severino to defend himself or retaliate. This is precisely the essence of treachery wherein the attack must be deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[26] Further, the strategy employed by the accused-appellant in carrying out the attack guaranteed that he will not be exposed to any risk which may arise from the defense the victim might make.[27] | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a difference between the act of drawing one's gun and the act of pointing one's gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In People v. Borreros,[16] We ruled that "for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude x x x. Here, the act of the [deceased] of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant." | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The list of approved bail bonds contained in the OCA memorandum dated June 29, 2004[48] shows 34 involved accused detained in Pasig City,[49] seven in Taguig City,[50] six in San Juan,[51] and one in Pateros.[52] The remaining three cases involved accused who voluntarily surrendered to Judge Tamang in the San Juan MeTC.[53] However, all of the criminal cases were pending in the Pasig RTC. | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [40] People v. Gerardo Latupan y Sibal @ Jerry, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, 28 June 2001, citing People v. Piamonte, 303 SCRA 577, 588 [1999] . | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the record, we find no cogent reason to overturn the assailed decision of the trial court. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed upon appellant to prove clearly and convincingly the elements thereof: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[18] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[19] If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[20] In this case, appellant's testimony miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. He claims that it was the victim who, without provocation on his part, suddenly attacked him. To defend himself, he was constrained to pull out the knife from his waist and stab the victim on the chest. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of Norton Baguio in accordance with our recent rulings.[41] We also agree with the trial court that the heirs are not entitled to actual damages for expenses incurred during the victim's wake and burial. To be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof.[42] In the case at bar, Adelia Patricio, the aunt of the victim, who shouldered the expenses for wake and the burial of the victim, failed to submit receipts to show the amount of such expenses.[43] Hence, there being no receipts presented as required by Art. 2199 of the Civil Code,[44] this Court cannot grant the heirs actual damages. | |||||
|
2000-05-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant fled from the scene of the stabbing after realizing that he had wounded the victim and admitted that he hid beneath the swamps, refusing to come out until he was certain that the friends of Elito were not looking for him. Flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience.[17] | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos awarded by the court a quo as civil indemnity ex delicto, without further need of proof of damage, is proper as it follows prevailing jurisprudence and is in line with the policy of the Court.[86] With regard to actual damages, the trial court found that the wife of the victim spent Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos for food and drinks during the deceased's ten-day wake; Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos for funeral services and transportation expenses of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos.[87] Since accused-appellant does not question this finding of the trial court, he is liable to private complainants in the said amount as actual damages.[88] | |||||
|
2000-03-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant claims to have acted in self-defense. When accused-appellant invoked self-defense, he, in effect, assumed the onus probandi to substantiate the same. It became his inescapable burden to prove clearly and convincingly the elements of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[10] Perusal of accused-appellant's testimony would disclose that he failed to prove all of these. His narration is simply too incredible to be believed. The number of wounds sustained by the victim and their location are contrary to appellant's assertion that he acted in self-defense. | |||||