This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-10-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Appellants' attack on the credibility of Wilson by claiming it was unnatural for Wilson not to help the victims who were supposedly his friends is without basis. Whether he could have helped them but did not is not an issue that is determinative of the veracity of the testimony as not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to expectation.[8] The fact of the matter is that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful experience.[9] All things considered, it is more reasonable to expect that rather than leave his hiding place and risk being seen, the witness would stay put and wait until after the perpetrators of the crime had left, which is exactly what he did.[10] Similarly, while it may have been unnecessary for Mario to hold Roel, that does not mean that it did not occur. And, contrary to the contention of appellants, there was no testimony that Mario was still holding Roel when he was shot and, therefore, risked being accidentally hit.[11] | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We agree with the trial court that all the appellants conspired to kill the victim, Juliano Mampo. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[50] The existence of conspiracy may be logically inferred and proved through acts of the accused that point to a common purpose, a concert of action, and a community of interest.[51] With the existence of conspiracy, it is no longer necessary to determine who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow.[52] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The two acts of rape in the case at bar, committed in 1990, are governed by the old provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, under which rape with the use of a deadly weapon was penalized with reclusion perpetua to death. In view of the suspension of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution and prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 7659 which re-imposed the same, the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.[16] However, the trial court's award of the total amount of P100,000.00 as "moral and exemplary damages"[17] needs correction. In rape cases, moral damages are awarded in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. In addition, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is awarded for each act of rape. Moral damages are separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.[18] On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages is not warranted, there being no aggravating circumstance.[19] | |||||