This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The aggravating circumstance of dwelling[38] was also attendant in the present case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor.[39] In this case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victims without provocation on their part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house.[40] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[41] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[42] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 12452 involving William Tacaldo, appellant was correctly found to have committed the crime of Frustrated Murder which, under Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code, is punishable by the penalty one degree lower than that which should be imposed for consummated murder; thus, reclusion temporal pursuant to Article 61(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The alleged aggravating circumstance in this case, that is, disregard of respect due the offended party on account of age, cannot be appreciated since it was not shown that appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the offended party.[33] Hence, the penalty must be applied in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term for the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of prision mayor while the maximum term of the sentence shall be within the range of reclusion temporal medium. Thus, we find the penalty imposed by the trial court in this case to be in order. | |||||
|
2004-03-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| to appreciate testimonial evidence.[28] Having personal opportunity to observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying,[29] the trial court judge's determination deserves the highest respect, sometimes even finality. Unless there appears on record some circumstance of weight and influence which had been overlooked[30] or the significance of which had been misinterpreted by the trial court,[31] the reviewing court will not set aside the findings of the trial court. Appellant has not shown any significant fact or circumstance which the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted. All that appellant says is that the testimonies of Leonel and Said are self-serving and that the testimonies of two police characters must be taken with extreme caution, for lack of credibility and weight, but he has not demonstrated convincingly and clearly why the conclusions of the court below should be disturbed and overturned. While Leonel admitted to being a pimp[32] and Said had been a usual suspect in many incidents of robberies,[33] these circumstances do not necessarily make them or their testimonies ipso facto incredible. In People v. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code,[28] the elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on occasion of or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, used in the generic sense, is committed.[29] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of Mrs. Adelan, prove the existence of all these elements beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2003-11-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the only matrix wherefrom a court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. The rules on evidence and case law sustain the conviction of appellants through circumstantial evidence.[50] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged.[20] Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, i.e., "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."[21] The conviction of appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.[22] | |||||
|
2003-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The contentions are without merit. Aside from his self-serving testimony, appellant failed to present any evidence to prove that he was tortured and intimidated into giving his extra-judicial confession. Appellant did not show any physical marks to prove that he was tortured; neither did he identify any of the police officers as his intimidators nor did he report the matter to his lawyer or to any of his relatives. The failure of the appellant to present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on his person; to complain to the officers who administered the oath; to institute any criminal or administrative action against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment; to show marks of violence on his body; or to prove that he underwent examination by a reputable physician, are factors indicating the voluntariness of the confession.[5] Besides, extra-judicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.[6] | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court found that the commission of the rape in this case was attended by the aggravating circumstance of minority of the victim, which was duly proved at the trial.[15] However, under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the fact that the rape victim was under eighteen (18) years of age may be appreciated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance only when the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.[16] In the case at bar, none of these relationships obtains between appellant and the victim. Neither can the minority of the victim be considered a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.[17] In order that this circumstance shall aggravate the offense, there must be a showing that the appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim.[18] There was no such showing in this case. Hence, the trial court erred in applying the aggravating circumstance of minority. | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| with interest. Although receipts should ordinarily support claims for actual damages, as an exception, in People v. Galvez,[19] we sustained the award of actual damages in view of the defense's admission of the claim. However, the order of the trial court to return the amount of P7,800.00 with interest to Rhine Transport must be deleted for not being supported by evidence. Furthermore, in line with the current jurisprudence, an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to the victim's heirs is likewise proper taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim's family brought about by his death.[20] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, in Criminal Case No. Q-98-77765 finding accused-appellants Raul Guimba, Dennis Arguelles and Delfin Rodrigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special | |||||