This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, conspiracy between the appellants was clearly established. Danilo initially stabbed Fulgencio at the back followed by Roger who stabbed the latter at the chest. When the victim tried to run for his life, a man with blonde hair blocked his path and the three continued to stab the victim. These acts undoubtedly showed appellants' unanimity in design, intent and execution. The appellants performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design[26] to bring about the death of Fulgencio. | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Anent appellant's alibi, it is inherently weak and cannot prevail over a positive identification from a witness found credible by the trial court.[31] Appellant avers that he was doing his rounds as a member of the Voluntary Lakas Brigade in Muntinlupa, which is nine (9) hours away from Oriental Mindoro, making it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. He presented the barangay logbook to support his alibi. The OSG correctly countered that this document was neither authenticated nor identified by the persons who supposedly issued them.[32] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime.[20] In criminal law, where the quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy--it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[21] | |||||
|
2008-06-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It also bears remembering that people react differently in different situations and there is no standard human response when one is confronted with a strange and frightful experience. [5] Even if a witness is himself attacked, he is still in a position to later on describe what has transpired. In some situations, when under siege, one's power of observation becomes even more acute and heightened. Recall that at that time Edison was being mauled to death with a steel chair, Jonathan was not himself under siege and even testified that at that time, he was even hurling stones at Edison's maulers. | |||||
|
2007-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the lack of credibility of Ruel peeping out to see who the assailants were and of Perla�s trying to see for herself what had happened, this Court has repeatedly held that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.[40] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The failure of Libao to help the wounded victim does not affect her credibility nor render incredible her testimony that she witnessed the stabbing incident.[37] | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We likewise reduce the indemnity for death from P75,000 to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[53] WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21 May 2001 and its Resolution dated 8 November 2001. We find petitioner Ramonito Manaban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, Ramonito Manaban is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ramonito Manaban is ordered to pay the heirs of Joselito Bautista: P892,570.56 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity; P69,500 as actual damages; and P50,000 as indemnity for death. | |||||