This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the trial court's findings, its assessment of probative weight of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusion anchored on such findings are entitled to great respect as, among other things, it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses.[25] | |||||
|
2009-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, a person committing a felony is responsible for all the natural and logical consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act performed is different from the one he intended;[36] "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).[37] Thus, the circumstance that petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not exempt him from criminal liability. Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3)[38] of the Revised Penal Code.[39] Nevertheless, we must appreciate as mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner the fact that the physical injuries he inflicted on the victim, could not have resulted naturally and logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the latter's heart was in good condition. | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Whereas, the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[41] It is designed to prevent damage to trade, commerce, and banking caused by worthless checks. In Lozano v. Martinez,[42] this Court declared that it is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[43] Hence, the criminal prosecution is designed to promote the public welfare by punishing offenders and deterring others. | |||||
|
2006-04-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Besides, petitioner himself admitted that he kicked Alberto when he lost his patience after Alberto clawed him also. Petitioner's father and Johnny Cemini,[31] a defense witness, also testified that petitioner kicked Alberto. That petitioner's kick was the proximate and immediate cause of Alberto's head injury, causing his death is beyond cavil. The kicking of the victim by petitioner is the first and immediate act that produced the injury and set the other events in motion, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor,[32] in a continuous chain of events leading to Alberto's death. | |||||