This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, the amount of actual damages is supported by receipts and should be sustained. However, while the father of the victim testified as to the actual damages sustained as a result of the death of the victim, he did not testify as to moral damages. Hence, for lack of competent proof, we cannot award moral damages.[31] | |||||
|
2000-08-18 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[13] None of these requisites can be inferred from the facts of this case. For one, the records do not show the time when petitioner resolved to commit the crime. The date and, if possible, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The failure of the prosecution to present eyewitnesses to the actual killing of Melvin does not ipso facto dispel the accused-appellants' authorship of the felony. Indeed, there are crimes where there are no eyewitnesses at all.[10] Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[11] Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.[12] Conviction may be had even on circumstantial evidence provided the following requisites concur: | |||||