This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.[106] The justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or with fault or negligence.[107] Where invoked, this ground for non-liability amounts to an acknowledgment that the accused has caused the injury or has committed the offense charged for which, however, he may not be penalized because the resulting injury or offense is a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty or the lawful exercise of his right or office. Thus, it must be shown that the acts of the accused relative to the crime charged were indeed lawfully or duly performed; the burden necessarily shifts on him to prove such hypothesis. | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In turn, the existence of malicious intent is necessary in order for conspiracy to attach. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code - which provides that "conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it" - is to be interpreted to refer only to felonies committed by means of dolo or malice. The phrase "coming to an agreement" connotes the existence of a prefaced "intent" to cause injury to another, an element present only in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or criminal negligence, the injury inflicted on another is unintentional, the wrong done being simply the result of an act performed without malice or criminal design.[126] Here, a person performs an initial lawful deed; however, due to negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill, the deed results in a wrongful act.[127] Verily, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act, which is a requisite in conspiracy, is inconsistent with the idea of a felony committed by means of culpa.[128] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people were walking then in different directions does not negate treachery. It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[40] This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.[41] As we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking and not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to death by appellant and his two companions. Further, Michael was a minor at the time of his death while appellant and his two companions were adult persons. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant was already apprehended for the hacking incident by the barangay officials of Lipa City just before he was turned over to the police by a certain Tomas Dimacuha.[54] Assuming that appellant had indeed surrendered to the authorities, the same was not made spontaneously.[55] Immediately after the hacking incident, appellant, instead of proceeding to the barangay or police, went to his brother, Sherman Beltran, in Bauan, Batangas, and the next day, to his sister in Lipa City. It took him three long days to surrender to the police authorities.[56] Moreover, the flight of appellant and his act of hiding until he was apprehended by the barangay officials are circumstances highly inconsistent with the spontaneity that characterizes the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.[57] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not present in the case at bar. To benefit an accused, the following requisites of this circumstance must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[47] A surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done by the accused spontaneously and made in such manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[48] In this case, there is no indication in the record that the appellant, of his own accord, came forward and presented himself before the authorities, manifesting his desire to spare the Government the time, effort and expense of pursuing him.[49] The appellant surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served upon him. The fact that the appellant did not defy but went peacefully with the arresting officer does not mean that he voluntarily surrendered. Hence, this mitigating circumstance can not be appreciated in favor of the appellant. | |||||