This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Article 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise as a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. The purpose of compromise is to settle the claims of the parties and bar all future disputes and controversies. However, criminal liability is not affected by compromise for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion, though complete reparation should have been made of the damages suffered by the offended party. A criminal case is committed against the People, and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.[108] Moreover, a compromise is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinction of criminal liability.[109] | |||||
|
2006-06-26 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy.[15] Conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence.[16] It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense is perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[17] It is not even required that the participants have an agreement for an appreciable period to commence it.[18] | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| As mentioned, the RTC and CA accepted the prosecution's version. The Court finds no reason to disturb such findings. Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive unless circumstances are present that would show that the lower courts have overlooked, misunderstood or misconstrued cogent facts that may alter the outcome of the case.[18] It does not appear that the conclusions that led to the conviction of Baxinela were arbitrarily reached by the lower courts and Baxinela has failed to point out any relevant circumstance that would convince the Court that a re-examination of the facts is warranted. On the contrary, Baxinela's version is challenged by his own contradicting testimony and other documentary evidence. Early in his testimony, Baxinela maintained that Lajo had already pulled his handgun and was aiming at him when he fired: Q. What else did you do after identifying yourself as a policeman and ask[ing] why he has a gun? A. He did not respond. Q. What else happened if anything happened? A. He immediately drew his gun turning towards me and aimed it at me.[19] Subsequently, when the trial court propounded clarificatory questions, Baxinela's new assertion was that the firearm was still at the back of Lajo: | |||||