Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO TONOG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 182601 2014-11-10	JOEY M. PESTILOS v. MORENO GENEROSO BRION, J.
In People v. Tonog, Jr.,[73] the warrantless arrest which was done on the same day was held valid. In this case, the arresting officer had knowledge of facts which he personally gathered in the course of his investigation, indicating that the accused was one of the perpetrators.
	GR No. 144497 2004-06-29	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO TONOG CALLEJO, SR., J.
The case filed against his co-accused Allan Solamillo and two other unidentified individuals are hereby ordered archived, without prejudice to their further prosecution, considering that until this time they have not yet been apprehended and still remain at large.[5] The ruling of the trial court was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 94533[6] on February 4, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:
	GR No. 141121 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO LOZADA Y SALOPESA PER CURIAM
In People vs. Tonog, Jr.,[5] the Court upheld a warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 133, of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure because the arresting officer, "in effecting the arrest of (the) accused x x x, had knowledge of facts gathered by him personally in the course of his investigation indicating that (the accused) was one of the perpetrators." In the instant case, the police officers, on the basis of the facts gathered in the course of their investigation, including the disclosure made by Reynaldo Diaz on how the plan to commit the offense was hatched, also had sufficient and reasonable grounds of suspicion that appellants were probably guilty of the crime charged.
	GR No. 123161 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. LIBERATO 'DUKDUK' SOLAMILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court held that the crime was committed with deliberate cruelty "considering that the victim suffered twenty-one (21) hack and stab-wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different parts of his body." The number of wounds is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance.[44] The mere fact that wounds in excess of what is necessary to cause death were inflicted upon the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.[45] It is necessary to show that the accused intentionally and deliberately increased the victim's suffering. In this case, there is no evidence showing appellants' intent to commit such cruelty.