This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| At the time the Informations were filed, petitioner Ambagan was already on his second consecutive term as municipal mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, having been elected to the same post during the 2001 National and Local Elections.[5] As mayor with salary allocation of grade 27,[6] the cases against him and his fellow accused were filed with the Sandiganbayan in accordance with Republic Act No. 8249.[7] Ambagan eventually ran and won for a third term in 2007, and was subsequently elected as member of the provincial board of Cavite.[8] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We find no cogent reason to depart from Our ruling in Perez. The claim of Velasco that his initial answer was made under pressing circumstances is too flimsy an excuse. It partakes of the nature of an alibi. As such, it constitutes a self-serving negative evidence which cannot he accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[62] The Court has consistently frowned upon the defense of alibi, and received it with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated.[63] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, appellant's argument that, where the evidence of the prosecution is weak, it becomes essential that motive be disclosed by evidence otherwise the guilt of the accused becomes open to reasonable doubt, must necessarily fail. Motive is not an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential where there are affirmative and categorical declarations proving the appellant's accountability for a felony. Such is the case here.[79] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the swift, sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[82] | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to the appellate court.[39] What remains to be determined is the propriety of the penalty imposed on accused-appellant. This brings us to the two (2) remaining errors assigned pertaining to the imposition of the death penalty upon the accused-appellant, upon a finding that the killing of the victim was qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| is awarded for the death of the victim while moral damages is awarded taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family brought about by his death.[25] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper and reasonable under current case law.[26] WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Judy Matore y Guevarra is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide for the death of Richard Saminado. He is | |||||