This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The rule is premised on the presumption that the accused is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere running through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, physical or psychological is forcefully apparent.[17] It is not intended as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from being coerced to admit any that is untrue.[18] To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.[19] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Indeed, accused-appellant admitted that he was first asked whether he wanted the services of Atty. Leyva before the latter acted as his defense counsel.[44] And counsel who is provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where the latter never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation but, on the contrary, thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.[45] Contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant, Atty. Leyva was not the municipal attorney of Rosario, Cavite but only a legal adviser of Mayor Renato Abutan.[46] | |||||
|
2001-06-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is treachery if the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his defense.[29] When Lapot, Gabitan, Villaflor, Cerilles, the two other waitresses and the rest of the group were already in the pumpboat, they were suddenly fired upon by accused-appellants. Placed in that dangerous situation, their only means of escape was to be far from the reach of the bullets. The remaining immediate option was to move the pumpboat as fast as they can towards the sea. Those on board had no time to prepare for any defense or even to seek cover. Under these circumstances, the suddenness and severity of the attack constituted treachery.[30] It could not be reasonably said that the victims should have expected accused-appellant Tan to chase them after the latter left them outside the disco house. Moreover, from the point of view of accused-appellants - one of whom was standing on top of the firetruck while another was at the rear of the truck - they were in a more advantageous position considering that the fire truck was on a higher level than the pumpboat. The pumpboat had no hard covering from which Gabitan's group could hide and protect themselves from the burst of gunfire. Not even the sea would be a good shelter for the bullets can easily penetrate the water. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant assails the award of damages by the trial court because the heirs of the victim presented no evidence to prove damages. Appellant was sentenced to pay the heirs of Leonides Cartalla P50,000.00 and the heirs of Marissa Domingo another P50,000.00 as death indemnity. It further awarded P100,000.00 as moral damages to said heirs of each victim. The P50,000.00 award as indemnity ex delicto is proper and consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[29] Moral damages, however, can be awarded only upon sufficient proof that the aggrieved parties are entitled thereto.[30] As correctly pointed out by appellant, the records are devoid of any factual basis for such an award. We must therefore delete said award of moral damages. | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This indeed is easy to assert, for conspiracy is something which exists only in the minds of the conspirators, which can easily be denied. However, conspiracy may be detected and deduced from the circumstances of the case which when pieced together will indubitably indicate that they form part of a common design to commit a felony; and, to establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be actual proof evincing that all of the conspirators took a direct part in every act, it being sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.[8] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The suddenness and severity of the attack on Raul and Felizardo constitute treachery.[14] Moreover, the congruence of these acts show that appellants acted in conspiracy. Proof of previous agreement to commit the crime is not essential, it being sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.[15] Due to conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[16] | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Molina's group, the latter stabbed Joseph Bon-ao at his back. The sudden and unanticipated killing of Joseph Bon-ao reinforced the trial court's finding of treachery, bolstered by the fact that the striking blow was at the back of the victims.[53] The same holds true to Angelito who was completely caught off guard as he was stabbed three (3) times when he chose to aid his brother Joseph. The Bon-aos had no inkling that Joseph's inquiry on who shouted "kuba" would foreshadow the untimely demise of Joseph and the near death of Angelito. As consistently held by this Court, an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia or treachery.[54] Its essence lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the unsuspecting victim.[55] On the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the trial court properly appreciated the same though not alleged in the information. Article 14(9) of the Revised Penal Code defines a recidivist as "one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously | |||||