This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| No ill motive was imputed or shown against these two witnesses as to why they would falsely testify against appellant. The mere fact that Rolando Reinante, Jr., Rosemarie's husband, was with them when they gave their statements at the police station did not taint their credibility. For the husband of the deceased victim surely wanted to see that the real perpetrator be punished for her death. Contrary to appellant's contention, no grieving husband would coach his household helpers to impute a crime on someone whom they knew to be innocent. That would be contrary to human nature and experience. Absent any evidence showing a reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure their testimonies, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive exists, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[19] | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.[48] The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected. Absent treachery and evident premeditation, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. Homicide is penalized under the Revised Penal Code by reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in this case, the penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed in its medium period.[49] The time included in | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Considering the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, under Art. 64(2) of the Revised Penal code, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant is the minimum period of the imposable penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal maximum, which has a range of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant should be within the range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium as the penalty next lower in degree than the imposable penalty for murder.[46] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor is there evident premeditation, as no proof was presented to establish when accused-appellant determined to commit the crime.[52] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We have examined the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Henry Cuevas and found nothing that would cast doubt on the veracity of his account of how accused-appellant Cirilo drew a "balisong" from his waist and stab Glorito to death in front of accused Ernesto's store in the evening of October 13, 1990. The fact that Henry is the nephew of the victim Glorito does not destroy his credibility. Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons, as one's natural interest would be to secure conviction of the real culprit.[11] And in the absence of evidence that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[12] | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength, however, can no longer be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, because it is absorbed by treachery.[30] | |||||