This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-12-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The court a quo also awarded moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to the heirs of the victim. While moral damages under Article 2206, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code may be awarded by the court for the mental anguish suffered by the heirs of the victim by reason of the victim's death, which was testified to by the father of the victim, the amount should, however, be reduced to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[43] The purpose for making such an award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[44] With regard to the award of exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[45] In the instant case, no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime; hence, the award of exemplary damages should be deleted. | |||||
|
2001-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Fourth. Nor did the trial court err in finding accused-appellant guilty of murder on the ground that the killing was committed with treachery as alleged in the information. The information alleged conspiracy between accused-appellant, John Doe, and Peter Doe, with treachery and evident premeditation. Conspiracy was established by the prosecution as shown by the fact that accused-appellant, John Doe, and Peter Doe acted in concert.[42] | |||||
|
2001-09-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention has no merit. The mere fact that Rodora and Modesta Agua are the daughter and wife of the victim, respectively, does not necessarily make their testimonies untruthful. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim without further evidence cannot serve as proof of bias.[13] It may not be presumed that these witnesses would testify falsely just to obtain retribution for the death of a loved one by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent.[14] To the contrary, the inclination of the victim's relatives is to see that the real culprits are punished.[15] | |||||
|
2001-04-30 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We hold, however, that the crime was committed with treachery and abuse of superior strength. The victim was unaware of the attack as he was then repairing a cart. Even his relatives who were just a few meters from him did not expect the attack. It was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense.[26] As the victim was already wounded, appellant Hermes Sarmiento still told appellant Rudy Sarmiento to help him stab the victim. They then took turns in delivering more stabbing blows on the victim despite the fact that he was already slumped on the ground. It is clear that appellants employed means in killing the victim which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might take.[27] Clearly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. While abuse of superior strength is present, it is absorbed by treachery and cannot be appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.[28] | |||||