Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICKY LADIANA Y DAVAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201565 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[55] It consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.[56] Here, the circumstantial evidence consists of the testimonies of Servando and Serapion. Servando was present when Mayor Carlos, Sr. ordered his men to kill Floro. Whether this order was executed can be answered by relating it to Antipolo's eyewitness account as well as Serapion's testimony.
	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.[20] As such, the press, whether in quest of news reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear since a special circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is required by this Section.
	GR No. 181539 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In sum, the trial and the appellate courts correctly convicted accused-appellant for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Accused-appellant's crime is punishable under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that when the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, and the crime is not attended by any aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.[36] Considering that no modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the penalty imposed by the trial and the appellate courts, reclusion perpetua, is proper.
	GR No. 201449 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. WELVIN DIU Y KOTSESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code states that when the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, and the crime is neither attended by mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.[56] In the present case, the Court of Appeals correctly refused to consider the aggravating circumstance of night time since it was not alleged in the Information. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was appropriately imposed upon accused-appellants as principals in the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
	GR No. 195243 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. RAUL BERIBER Y FUENTES PERALTA, J.
The crime for which appellant was charged and convicted was robbery with homicide. It is a special complex crime against property.[21] Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. In charging Robbery with Homicide, the onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.[22]