This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We have consistently ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and that in every criminal prosecution, what is needed is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[28] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the assailed decision, however, we note that the trial court failed to award damages. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[55] the sum of P50,000 is awarded as civil indemnity for the death of Elena Padilla. As actual damages, the amount of P60,000 should also be awarded corresponding to the value of the cash and jewelry stolen. | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Seventh, the three other accused - Junior, Lando and Nestor - are the children of Luter, Sr. who remain to be at large. Surprisingly, no one from the immediate family seems to know their whereabouts and no sufficient explanation has been offered as to their flight. Defense witness Sonia Cujitia, a daughter of Luter, Sr., admitted that her brothers disappeared right after the incident and that she does not know where they are.[14] It has often been said that flight is a strong indication of guilt.[15] Luter, Sr. was seen together with his three sons during all the times material to this case: when Polinar, Jr. saw the Orculas gang up on Oscar a few meters away from the former's house; when the same group went to the house of Polinar, Jr. and asked the latter about his father and uncle; and when Alimasac met the group on the road several meters away from where the body of Oscar was found. There is no iota of doubt that Luter, Sr. conspired with his three sons in the killing of Oscar. | |||||
|
2000-03-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case at bar, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of accused-appellant and overpowers his defense of denial and alibi. Aside from the fact that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, accused-appellant's alibi of being in his house at 5:30 in the morning does not preclude his physical presence in the house of the victim considering that their respective residences are only 380 meters apart. Moreover, the proven circumstances in the instant case, when viewed in their entirety, are as convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negate the innocence of accused-appellant, to wit: (1) accused-appellant was present at the scene of the crime; (2) he had blood stains on his body and clothes, had a bolo tucked in his waist and was carrying a plastic bag when he was seen leaving the scene of the crime; (3) he left Brgy. Sta. Cruz for Butuan City on the same day when the victim was killed; (4) he admitted to Mario Vinculado that he kill the victim; (5) he did not even bother to inform Roberto Lasquite of his alleged innocence despite having learned that he was being made accountable for the death of Bonifacia Lasquite; (6) he could not think of any reason as to why Benjamin Milano, his nephew, would lie in testifying against him; and (7) he escaped from incarceration during the pendency of this case before the lower court. Clearly, the foregoing evidence is consistent with the culpability of the accused and inconsistent with his defense of denial and alibi. Not the least worthy of notice is the fact that accused-appellant twice sought to escape liability: first, on the day that the victim was killed and second, while he was incarcerated in prison. As has often been repeated, flight is a strong indication of guilt.[78] The reasons put forward by accused-appellant to justify the two instances when he fled, i.e., first, to look for his live-in partner's long lost father and second, because he was denied conjugal visits, are simply too lame and whimsical to merit credibility. Moreover, if the purpose of his trip to Butuan City was to look for his live-in partner's father, why did he not return immediately to Brgy. Sta. Cruz after he and his live-in partner failed to locate the whereabouts of the said father? The only logical reason would be that he was avoiding something in Brgy. Sta. Cruz. However, despite his efforts to escape from the long arm of the law, it still caught up with him in Butuan City. | |||||