Lawyerly

GR No. 201310

2016-01-11

MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN v. REGINALD FUENTES

LEONEN, J.

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.[50] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 203087

2015-11-23

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA

PERALTA, J.

Joseph was walking home unsuspecting of the imminent danger to his life. Appellants came from behind and in a sudden and unexpected manner assaulted Joseph who was not able to defend himself from such attack. In fact, he was continuously mauled until he fell to the ground unconscious and then appellant Edgardo smashed his head with a stone. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery.[49]

GR No. 190912

2015-01-12

GARY FANTASTICO v. ELPIDIO MALICSE

PERALTA, J.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.[7]

GR No. 175023

2010-07-05

GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People,[19] we considered the following factors to determine the presence of an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We also consider motive and the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim as additional determinative factors.[20]

GR No. 186128

2010-06-23

PEOPLE v. SUSAN LATOSA Y CHICO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

There is no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove by circumstantial evidence her motive in killing her husband. Intent to kill and not motive is the essential element of the offense on which her conviction rests. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.[30]

GR No. 187682

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Criminal Case No. 21-4986, where accused-appellant was found guilty only of Attempted Murder, the RTC sentenced him to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years of prision correccional, as maximum. This is erroneous. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the accused-appellant is only guilty of attempted murder, the penalty should be lowered by two degrees, following Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Under paragraph 2 of Article 61, in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty two degrees lower is prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime, other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor, which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.[30]

GR No. 176609

2008-12-18

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

An essential element of homicide, whether in its consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[38]

GR No. 163331

2008-08-29

ARELLANO NOVICIO v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

On the second issue, our ruling in Rivera v. People[30] is instructive:An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.

GR NO. 173793

2007-12-04

vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO

REYES, R.T., J.

An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[54]

GR NO. 172695

2007-06-29

PEOPLE v. ISAIAS CASTILLO Y COMPLETO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

There is no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove motive in killing his wife. Intent to kill and not motive is the essential element of the offense on which his conviction rests.[11] Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.[12]

	GR No. 201310 2016-01-11	MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN v. REGINALD FUENTES LEONEN, J.
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.[50] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 203087 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ZABALA y BALADA PERALTA, J.
Joseph was walking home unsuspecting of the imminent danger to his life. Appellants came from behind and in a sudden and unexpected manner assaulted Joseph who was not able to defend himself from such attack. In fact, he was continuously mauled until he fell to the ground unconscious and then appellant Edgardo smashed his head with a stone. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery.[49]
	GR No. 190912 2015-01-12	GARY FANTASTICO v. ELPIDIO MALICSE PERALTA, J.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.[7]
	GR No. 175023 2010-07-05	GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People,[19] we considered the following factors to determine the presence of an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We also consider motive and the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim as additional determinative factors.[20]
	GR No. 186128 2010-06-23	PEOPLE v. SUSAN LATOSA Y CHICO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove by circumstantial evidence her motive in killing her husband. Intent to kill and not motive is the essential element of the offense on which her conviction rests. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.[30]
	GR No. 187682 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Criminal Case No. 21-4986, where accused-appellant was found guilty only of Attempted Murder, the RTC sentenced him to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years of prision correccional, as maximum. This is erroneous. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the accused-appellant is only guilty of attempted murder, the penalty should be lowered by two degrees, following Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Under paragraph 2 of Article 61, in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty two degrees lower is prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime, other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor, which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.[30]
	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An essential element of homicide, whether in its consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[38]
	GR No. 163331 2008-08-29	ARELLANO NOVICIO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
On the second issue, our ruling in Rivera v. People[30] is instructive:An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[54]
	GR NO. 172695 2007-06-29	PEOPLE v. ISAIAS CASTILLO Y COMPLETO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove motive in killing his wife. Intent to kill and not motive is the essential element of the offense on which his conviction rests.[11] Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.[12]

ESMERALDO RIVERA v. PEOPLE