This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| means to defend himself.[66] The fact that the gun was drawn and fired does not mean that the mode of attack was consciously and deliberately employed. The use of a shotgun, by itself, does not necessarily imply treachery.[67] The RTC appreciated treachery, because the victim had been shot twice from behind as confirmed by the testimony of the medicolegal expert[68] and by the physical evidence showing the extent and the location of the wounds sustained by the | |||||
|
2002-04-02 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| To complement its theory, the prosecution introduced evidence showing there was motive on the part of appellant in committing the crime. Jenny Lora testified that previously, appellant threatened to kill Leonarda if she would not meet his demand for money. With proof of such motive and circumstantial evidence on hand, appellant's guilt is indeed beyond any doubt. In People vs. De Mesa,[26] this Court held that "Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction." | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.[61] | |||||