Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BUSTOS ET AL.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 142044 2001-11-23	PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Abuse of superior strength, which was also alleged in the Information, cannot likewise be appreciated. In People v. Flores,[62] this Court pointed out that this aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, gender, the physical sizes and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that accused-appellant utilized any notorious inequality to his advantage.[63] In other words, mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[64]
	GR No. 138841 2001-04-04	PEOPLE v. RONNIE FLORES Y PANGANIBAN VITUG, J.
Neither does the prosecution's allegation of superior strength hold against accused-appellant. This aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, the gender, the physical sizes and the strength, of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that accused-appellant utilized any notorious inequality[20] to his advantage.[21] There being no circumstance qualifying the killing of Arnel Baldevieso to murder, accused-appellant can only be held accountable for HOMICIDE punishable under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion temporal.
	GR No. 131925 2000-03-09	PEOPLE v. DARIO CABANAS CUAL GONZAGA-REYES, J.
With respect to the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, we likewise find that it is not attendant under the circumstances. In order to appreciate this qualifying circumstance, there must be evidence introduced that the two accused-appellants were physically stronger that the victim and that they abused such superiority by taking advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[54] In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to introduce any evidence as to the relative physical strength of the parties involved. In fact, the lone eyewitness to the incident, Leodivico Caayao, was non-committal on this aspect: "Atty. Merlas (to the witness) Q: And this Sabtorani, you can recall is builded. Is it not? A: Tall and slim. I could not tell correctly as to his height. Q: When you say taller, between this accused Villoceno and the deceased Sabturani, who is taller? A: Sabturani was taller. Q: And, in fact, he was also bigger than the accused? A: I did not see clearly because he was seated."[55]