This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| la detención, la prición, la privación de la libertad de una persona, en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio ó por cualquier tiempo en virtud de la cual resulte interrumpido el libre ejercicio de su actividad." [69] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.[10] The original Spanish version of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code used the term "lock up" (encarcerar) rather than "kidnap" (sequestrator or raptor) which "includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time."[11] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Saturnino's testimony establishes something that is merely speculative. To be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."[28] To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[29] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Like any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[59] To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution is tasked to show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[60] Evident premeditation is not presumed from the mere lapse of time.[61] It may only be appreciated when the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and deliberate reflection upon the resolution to carry out the felonious intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[62] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Q And when you said that what was your intention? A I watched for him in Balugo, sir.[18] The prosecutor proved that the appellant used a knife, a deadly weapon, in forcing Beatriz to submit to his lustful desires. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the use of a deadly weapon such as a knife to commit a crime is a special aggravating circumstance which requires the imposition of reclusion perpetua to death.[19] However, such circumstance was not alleged in the Information as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[20] Although the said rules took effect only on December 1, 2000, long after the commission of the crime on July 17, 1992, the same should be applied retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant. Hence, such circumstance should not be appreciated against the appellant.[21] In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the appellant should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Whether the accused acted in self-defense, complete or incomplete, is a question of fact best addressed to the trial court.[10] The consistent ruling of this Court is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties and its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence on record, as well as its conclusions on its findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is because of the trial court's opportunity to observe and monitor at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of witnesses as they testify. This rule, however, is inapplicable where the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.[11] The Court scrutinized the records of the case and we find no reason to deviate from the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victims. | |||||
|
2003-11-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Although this rule took effect only on December 1, 2000, long after the crimes charged were committed, it should nonetheless be applied retroactively, it being favorable to the appellant.[60] Even if the prosecution proved beyond cavil the minority of the victims Noemi and Donna and their filiation with the appellant, if such circumstances were not alleged in the Information, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape; otherwise, he would thereby be deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.[61] | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. [28] In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, 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. As appellants correctly argue, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. [29] The Court emphasizes, however, that said overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. [30] | |||||