Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARNEL COLINARES v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 206513 2015-10-20	MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
On June 28, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision[6] adopting the recommendation of the OSG. In modifying the RTC Decision, petitioner was found guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum. Likewise, he was ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages.
	GR No. 206513 2015-10-20	MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It was obvious then, as it is now, that the accused in Colinares should not have been allowed the benefit of probation. As I have previously stated and insisted upon, probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender; it is a special privilege granted by the State to a penitent qualified offender,[39] who does not possess the disqualifications under Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, as amended.[40] Likewise, the Probation Law is not a penal law for it to be liberally construed to favor the accused.[41]
	GR No. 151258 2014-12-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Very recently, in Colinares v. People,[68] we revisited our ruling in Francisco and modified our pronouncements insofar as the eligibility for probation of those who appeal their conviction is concerned. Through a majority vote of 9-6, the Court En Banc in effect abandoned Lagrosa and settled the following once and for all:[69]
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
For all the above reasons, I vote to AFFIRM Lito Corpuz's conviction with MODIFICATION of the indeterminate penalty to 2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional, as maximum, entitling him to probation under the ruling laid down in Colinares v. People.[63]
	GR No. 198400 2013-10-07	FE ABELLA Y PERPETUA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
In cases of frustrated homicide, the main element is the accused's intent to take his victim's life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.[46]
	GR No. 198789 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. REGGIE BERNARDO REYES, J.
It was also proven that Bernardo committed attempted murder against Reah. It is settled that if the victim's wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.[26] Such fact was established by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Corpuz.[27]
	GR No. 194564 2013-04-10	SERGIO SOMBOL v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
As Sombol failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression, his plea of self-defense necessarily fails. Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for self-defense to be appreciated.[30] Without unlawful aggression, the accused has nothing to prevent or repel, and there is then no basis for appreciating the other two requisites.[31]