Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ISA ABDUL

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 180507 2008-11-20	PEOPLE v. NESTOR BAJADA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
The CA, however, disagreed with the trial court's finding of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and additional serious physical injury. It said that the information failed to specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of dwelling; hence, it cannot be appreciated even if proved during trial. Also, applying People v. Abdul, the appellate court held that the homicides or murders and physical injuries committed on occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of "robbery with homicide."[12] It concluded that absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the CA's judgment reads:
	GR No. 123147 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH MANENG Y ORTESA PARDO, J.
This Court agrees with the trial court that despite the presence of an additional killing as an aggravating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, since the crime was committed prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659,[21] which reimposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes.[22]
	GR No. 137604 2000-07-03	PEOPLE v. ROBERT ARANETA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Given the positive identification made by the lone prosecution witness, the accused-appellant's uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail. The defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove.[15] A positive identification of the accused made by an eyewitness prevails over such a defense.[16] Likewise, the denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses that he participated in the commission of the crime. Like the defense of alibi, a denial is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that the accused-appellant was at the scene of the incident and was one of the victim's assailants and perpetrator of the crime.[17]
	GR No. 101335 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ROBLES Y MOANA QUISUMBING, J.
As to the penalty. When more than one person is killed on the occasion of the robbery, the additional killing should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance to avoid the anomalous situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be on the same level as robbery with multiple killings.[33] At the time of the commission of the offense on January 30, 1987, the penalty for robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion perpetua to death. In view, however, of the subsequent suspension of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution, favorable to appellant,[34] the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty regardless of the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances.[35] The trial court, therefore, properly imposed the sentence of reclusion perpetua on appellant.
	GR No. 118573-74 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The circumstances leading to the stabbing of SERAFIN and ARIEL clearly and convincingly establishes that a conspiracy existed between the accused-appellants. When SERAFIN refused to get down from the jeep after RICARDO grabbed his neck and attempted to pull him out, John Doe[32] attempted to loosen SERAFIN's grip on the steering wheel. TEODORO who was armed with a knife-like instrument then stabbed SERAFIN. At the same time, REYNALDO pulled the arm of ARIEL and ordered ARIEL to get down from the jeep. While he was getting down, REYNALDO suddenly stabbed him. ARIEL pushed REYNALDO then ran towards MANNY's gate. TEODORO ran after him but was not able to catch him. Clearly, each of the accused-appellants performed distinct but simultaneous acts which when pieced together show unity of purpose and design. It therefore becomes irrelevant as to whom amongst them actually stabbed SERAFIN since in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[33]
	GR No. 109773 2000-03-30	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO BASE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the time the crime was committed on February 8, 1990, murder was punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Considering the presence of two aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty of death would be imposable under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. However, since the offense was committed during the suspension of the imposition of the death penalty and prior to its reimposition under Republic Act No. 7659,[83] the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.[84] This penalty is single and indivisible, thus, it shall be imposed regardless of any attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances.[85]
	GR No. 115192 2000-03-07	PEOPLE v. ELMER SALAS Y DAVID QUISUMBING, J.
We likewise note that appellant is the nephew of prosecution witness Orlando Pangan. Appellant miserably failed to show any reason why Orlando Pangan should wrongly testify against his own kin who stands accused. The absence of evidence showing any improper motive on the part of the principal witness for the prosecution to falsely testify against the appellant strongly tends to buttress the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony of said witnesses deserve full faith and credit. [26]
	GR No. 100718-19 2000-01-20	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE JUAN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
We are not persuaded. A conspiracy was established between the accused-appellants, FREDDIE and EFREN. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[20] It need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the accused[21]; it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[22] Evidence shows that both accused-appellants acted in concert, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to execute the crime of murder. They both stoned the house of Adelaida Tabang early that evening; they both chased TABANG into said house when he answered the call of nature and in the course of the pursuit, kicked the door of the house of Adelaida Tabang open in order to enter the said house. These facts taken in the context of the conversation of accused-appellants after the gunshots were fired i.e. "Shoot him now, shoot him now"; "Tinamaan mo ba?"; "Oo, patay na" show the existence of an intentional participation in a simultaneous chain of events, which led to the shooting of Carlos Torres. Considering that the evidence convincingly establishes that either of the two accused-appellants shot Carlos Torres, it is irrelevant as to who between them delivered the fatal shot.[23] In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[24]