This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There was alevosia or treachery in accused-appellant's killing of Paceño. For treachery to qualify the act of killing to murder, two elements must concur: (1) the culprit employed means, methods, and forms of execution which tended directly and specially to insure the offender's safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, which means that no opportunity was given the latter to do so; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Treachery is never presumed but must be proven with moral certainty like the offense itself.[26] In the instant case, accused-appellant's treachery is evident in the following circumstances: (a) he armed himself with a gun; (b) he consciously boarded the same multicab with Paceño and sat across the latter; (c) Paceño was unarmed and unaware of any impending attack against him; (d) without any provocation, accused-appellant suddenly pulled out his gun, and aimed and shot Pacefio twice in the head, leaving the latter with no means to defend himself, much less retaliate. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly alleged in the Information. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Secondly, the failure to allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship in the information in Criminal Case No. 98-2304-MK precluded a finding of qualified rape against the accused. Section 8,[19] Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has expressly required that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. Due to such requirement being pro reo, the Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of even those charged with felonies committed prior to December 1, 2000 (i.e., the date of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the requirement).[20] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the matter of damages, we affirm the award of actual damages in the amount of P22,050, as these are duly substantiated by receipts and appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is likewise sustained, pursuant to controlling case law.[72] However, we increase the award of moral damages to a more reasonable amount of P30,000, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[73] | |||||