Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NONOY EBET

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 189850 2014-09-22	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TORRES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's alibi is unworthy of credence. Appellant himself testified that Villaruel is less than two kilometers away from Divisoria and that it would only take a few minutes to go to Divisoria from Villaruel.[33] Clearly, it was not impossible for appellant to be physically present at the crime scene during its commission. "For alibi to prosper, it must strictly meet the requirements of time and place. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it must also be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed."[34]
	GR No. 180919 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. MELBA L. ESPIRITU DEL CASTILLO, J.
"An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments."[39] As can be gleaned from appellant's above-quoted testimony as well as from the testimony of Carla as to what transpired during the actual buy- bust operation, appellant acted in common concert with her co-accused in the illegal sale of shabu. She cannot therefore isolate her act of merely accompanying Espiritu to the RFC Food Court or carrying the shabu since in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.[40] "To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy."[41]
	GR No. 177357 2012-10-17	PEOPLE v. VAL DELOS REYES MENDOZA, J.
At any rate, these alleged inconsistencies do not militate against her credibility as the Court has repeatedly held that sworn statements are almost always incomplete and inaccurate and do not disclose the complete facts for want of inquiries or suggestions.[34] It is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate and is generally considered to be inferior to a testimony given in open court as the latter is subject to the test of cross-examination.[35]
	GR No. 187073 2012-03-14	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CASTRO Y PERALTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Taken together, the appellants' actions proved beyond reasonable doubt that they acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The evidence does not show that any of the appellants sought to avert the killing of Benedicto. In People v. Ebet,[8] we ruled that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
	GR No. 187733 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO “REY” BUYAGAN BRION, J.
In People v. Ebet,[7] we explained that homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
	GR No. 176535 2011-09-07	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
On 30 January 2004, NHA appealed the CIAC Decision to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Review Under Rule 43 (With Prayer for Restraining Order & Injunctive Writ),[60] which was docketed thereat as CA-G.R. SP No. 81635.[61]
	GR No. 184925 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD MENDOZA, J.
As the CA emphatically stated, "the defense of alibi may not be successfully invoked where the identity of the assailant has been established by the witnesses." [25] Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses [26] and should be received with caution, because they can be easily fabricated, [27] and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. [28]
	GR No. 192789 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. NGANO SUGAN BRION, J.
The foregoing circumstances prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The evidence does not show that any of the appellants sought to avert the killing of Nestor. In People of the Philippines v. Nonoy Ebet,[10] we ruled that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.