This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows: (a) that there be several persons; (b) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (c) that these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (d) that someone was killed in the course of the affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (f) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified.[22] Based on case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.[23] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Subsequently, HLI submitted to DAR its SDP, designated as "Proposal for Stock Distribution under C.A.R.P.," [35] which was substantially based on the SDOA. | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It will be recalled that the 500-hectare land was first reclassified from agricultural to commercial, industrial and residential purposes by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac [294] in the general zoning map of the then Municipality of Tarlac. Thereafter, the DAR approved the application for conversion into industrial use. [295] Thus, when petitioner HLI partitioned and transferred the property to Luisita Realty, Inc. (200 hectares) and Centennary Holdings, (300 hectares), there was no impediment thereto. | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| And third, the CA found accused-appellant Hwan's other arguments untenable. It held that the trial court correctly admitted Exhibits "K" and "M" even if the photographer was not presented as a witness. The CA based its ruling on Sison v. People, [5] which held that photographs can be identified either by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. It agreed with the Solicitor General that accused-appellants were correctly tried and convicted by the trial court under RA 6425 and not RA 9165, as can be gleaned from the fallo of the RTC Decision. The CA likewise dismissed the argument that conspiracy was not proved by the prosecution, noting that the evidence presented established that accused-appellants were performing "their respective task[s] with the objective of loading the plastic bags of shabu into an L-300 van." [6] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The photographs presented by the defense to prove that Salvacion's house was not burned, were correctly disregarded by the lower courts as having no probative value. Indeed, photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and he must testify as to the circumstances under which they were produced.[30] While appellant claimed that the photographs were taken after the alleged fire, he could not completely identify the person who had taken them. Neither did he even claim that he was present when the photographs were shot. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.[5] The quarrel in the instant | |||||