This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On June 4, 2003, during the preliminary conference, Montemayor, through counsel, moved for the deferment of the administrative proceedings explaining that he has filed a petition for certiorari before the CA[14] questioning the PAGC's jurisdiction to conduct the administrative investigation against him. The PAGC denied Montemayor's motion for lack of merit, and instead gave him until June 9, 2003 to submit his counter-affidavit or verified answer.[15] Still, no answer was filed. | |||||
|
2003-11-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In People vs. Escote, [56] we held that "treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery." The killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown.[57] Considering that the victims in this case of robbery with homicide are young children, aged 7, 8 and 14, the killing was aggravated by treachery. | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| That treachery attended the killing of Leonil Jimenez, qualifying the crime to murder, as alleged in the information and found by the trial court, deserves our concurrence also. Records show that Leonil was only 12 years old at the time he was killed.[57] We have stated that the killing of minor children who, because of their tender age, could not be expected to put up a defense, is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not shown.[58] In People v. Ganohon[59] we deemed as attended with treachery the killing of a 12-year-old child. Similarly, in People v. Abuyen,[60] we ruled that the killing of a 13-year-old child is, in itself, treacherous. In both cases, we qualified the killings as murder. In this particular case, treachery indubitably qualified the killing of Leonil Jimenez, a 12-year-old child, as murder. | |||||