This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| But while we agree that treachery might not have attended the killing of Sanchez, we rule that there was abuse of superior strength that should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance on the part of appellants. Abuse of superior strength is present when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[73] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the commission of the crime; a conviction can thus only rest on circumstantial evidence. Rule 133, Section 4, of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if - (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt,[14] and facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence can well constitute evidence which, in weight and probative force, may not too infrequently even surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court.[15] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Finally, the trial court was correct in not awarding damages for lost earnings. The prosecution merely relied on Enriqueta Eumag's self-serving statement, that her husband was earning at least ten cavans of palay per cropping as farmer. Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and requires due proof of the amount of the damage suffered. For loss of income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income. Also, the award for lost income refers to the net income of the deceased, that is, his total income less his average expenses. In this case, Enriqueta gave only a self-serving testimony of her husband's income. No proof of the victim's expenses were adduced; thus, there can be no reliable estimate of his lost income.[71] | |||||