This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We likewise rule that both the CA and the trial court were correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength in killing Rolando Sevilla. To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. In order to be appreciated, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage thereof.[24] In this case, as testified to by the prosecution eyewitnesses, accused-appellants Ramon, Sotero and Bienvenido, with the exception of Marciano, were armed with nightsticks (bahi) while Noel was holding a knife. Clearly they took advantage of their superiority in number and arms in killing the victim, as shown by numerous wounds the latter suffered in different parts of his body. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Denial and alibi of the appellants cannot be sustained in the light of their positive identification by the prosecution eyewitnesses.[51] Being a long-time neighbor, Lenita could not have erred in positively identifying them as two of the persons who killed the victim. Besides, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for appellants to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime occurred but they must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime.[52] In this case, it was established that during the commission of the crime, appellant Simon was in his house, also within the BCL Homes Compound, the scene of the crime. Appellant Reyes, on the other hand, while staying in Tamaraw Hills, Marulas, Valenzuela, admitted during the trial that he went to the BCL Homes Compound that same evening to get two boxes of fasteners from the car of Crispin Bajado parked in the same Compound. Obviously, it was physically possible for them to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. | |||||
|
2002-11-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| has been shown why these witnesses would testify falsely against accused-appellant. Their testimonies were worthy of the full faith and credit accorded to them by the trial court.[36] Second. Accused-appellant assails the Report #C-026-99 on the result of the paraffin test which shows his right hand to be positive for gunpowder nitrates. Accused-appellant contends that the person who examined the paraffin cast was not present when the cast was | |||||
|
2002-04-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Insofar as the damages are concerned, the accused are liable to pay the heirs of Geronimo Layagon and Antonio Escalante, respectively, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Civil indemnity and moral damages in murder cases require no further proof other than death.[19] On the other hand, exemplary damages shall be imposed as part of the civil liability arising from crime where the aggravating circumstances attended the commission thereof.[20] The trial court, however, erred in ordering each of the accused to pay the full amount of the aforesaid damages. The civil liability of co-principals in a criminal case is solidary.[21] | |||||