Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY CALABROSO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179709 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the essential elements of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[26] By invoking self-defense, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense.[27] The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused admitted that he was the author of the death of the victim and his defense was anchored on self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the
	GR NO. 129875 2005-09-30	JOVITO CABUSLAY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
On the other hand, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award P50,000.00 by way of indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of Paquito. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to such amount as indemnity for death without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[75]
	GR No. 148912 2003-09-10	PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
Even assuming arguendo that there was an altercation before the stabbing incident and that some danger did in fact exist, the imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment appellant disarmed the victim by wresting the knife from the latter. After the former had successfully seized it, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would have necessitated the need to kill the latter. Hence, appellant became the unlawful aggressor when he stabbed the victim.[24]
	GR No. 138470 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO GARCIA Y CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.[17]
	GR Nos. 142919 and 143876 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. RICARDO NAPALIT Y PARAL CARPIO MORALES, J.
And the trial court erred too in finding accused-appellant guilty of the Anti-Carnapping Act. Carnapping, as defined under Section 2, paragraph 2 of this special law, is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by use of force upon things. The elements of carnapping are thus: (a) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (b) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; (c) the taking is done with intent to gain.[38]
	GR Nos. 144086-87 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. EDRALIN TABOGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This is a glaring error because it practically convicts the accused-appellant of the crime charged on the basis of an assumption. Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses, the accused can be convicted only of the offense proved.[43] Absent any evidence that the accused indeed robbed the victim, the special complex crime of robbery with homicide cannot stand.[44]