This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| the offender was not actually arrested; (b) he surrendered to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and (c) his surrender was voluntary.[48] There must be showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare them the trouble and expense concomitant to his capture.[49] The records show that appellant did not surrender but was arrested in his residence by SPO4 Cuison. This arresting officer even had to go twice to appellant's home to effect the arrest, because during the first attempt, appellant would not come out of his house and his mother refused to turn him over to the arresting officer.[50] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We sustain the trial court's holding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and, therefore, cannot be appreciated separately as an independent aggravating circumstance.[54] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The question whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact.[15] In convicting appellant, the trial court succinctly held that:In the case at bar, the court is not persuaded to believe the assertion of accused Hever Paulino that he acted in self-defense when he threw a big stone at the head of victim Leornarda Paulino, which led to her death. As admitted by the accused on the witness stand, he had no previous quarrel or misunderstanding with victim Leonarda Paulino, nor with eyewitness Joy Paulino, or with any members of their family. There is no reason, therefore, why Leonarda would chase him with a scythe. There is also no reason at all why Joy Paulino would impute to the accused the heinous crime of Murder, if he did not commit the crime as charged. This is especially so, taking into account the fact that the accused, the victim and the eyewitness are relatives. Leonarda is the wife of the uncle of the accused, while Joy is the first cousin of the accused. Well-settled is the rule that where there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by any improper motive, the presumption is that they are not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. Mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair her credibility as to render her testimony unworthy of credence where no improper motive can be ascribed to her for so testifying. The assertion of the accused that the victim chased him with a scythe is unworthy of belief as it is unnatural, coupled by the fact that it runs counter to the credible and straightforward testimony of eyewitness Joy Paulino... | |||||
|
2003-01-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[40] The agreement need not be proven by direct evidence;[41] it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and after the commission of the offense, [42] pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[43] Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[44] | |||||
|
2002-12-04 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.[39] It cannot be entertained if it is uncorroborated by any separate and competent evidence, and it is also doubtful.[40] The question whether the accused acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact properly evaluated by the lower court; in this case, the Sandiganbayan.[41] By itself, the Counter-Affidavit miserably fails to establish the requisites of self-defense enumerated in the law.[42] Had petitioner been more vigilant in protecting his rights, he could have presented clear and cogent evidence to prove those elements. | |||||
|
2002-11-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| methods or forms which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[49] In the case at bar, the attack was so sudden that the victim M/Sgt. Malit was not even able to draw the gun tucked in his waistband. What is more, the weapon used, an M16 Baby Armalite, almost certainly made it impossible for the victim to defend himself with his 45-caliber pistol. The crime committed by accused-appellant Wilson Manijas is murder qualified by treachery. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm, an M16 Baby | |||||