Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 188704 2010-07-07	PEOPLE v. PEDRO ORTIZ MENDOZA, J.
The accused argues that there could not have been any treachery because the victim knew the threat to his life. The Court has consistently held that treachery can still be appreciated even though the victim was forewarned of the danger[16] because what is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[17] In this case, although it is true that the victim knew that the accused had a grudge against him, he never had any inkling that he would actually be attacked that night. In fact, records reveal that the victim was preoccupied with watching television with his back turned against the accused when the latter suddenly barged into the barangay hall. Accused, moreover, used a firearm to easily neutralize the victim, which was undeniably a swift and effective way to achieve his purpose. Lastly, but significantly, the accused aimed for the face of the victim ensuring that the bullet would penetrate it and damage his brain.
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is clear from the testimonies of Joselito and Marcos that appellants were of one mind in killing Pedro, as shown by their well-connected overt acts during the incident, to wit: (1) appellants altogether approached Pedro; (2) appellant Ausencio suddenly embraced and held the shoulders of Pedro; (3) appellants Romulo and Lutgardo went in front of Pedro; (3) appellant Romulo hit Pedro on the forehead with a ukulele; (4) appellant Lutgardo stabbed Pedro in the left part of the stomach; (5) appellant Ausencio pushed Pedro to the ground and told the latter, "You can go home now as you have already been stabbed"; and (6) appellants altogether fled the scene. No other logical conclusion would follow from appellants' concerted action, except that they had a common purpose in accomplishing the same felonious act. Conspiracy having been established, appellants are liable as co-principals regardless of their participation.[47]
	GR No. 177134 2009-08-14	PEOPLE v. RACHEL ANGELES Y NAVAL CARPIO MORALES, J.
That treachery attended the stabbing cannot be gainsaid. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[17]
	GR No. 173248 2008-11-03	PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO BRION, J.
While evident premeditation was alleged in the Information, the court a quo correctly concluded that this circumstance was not proven. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect on the consequences of his act.[45] Significantly, the prosecution did not even attempt to prove the presence of these elements; Alfonso, the principal eyewitness, was not even aware of any prior incident or any possible reason that could have led the appellant and his co-accused to attack the victim.
	GR No. 172696 2008-08-11	PEOPLE v. BENITO BALLESTEROS Y GRAGASIN BRION, J.
While evident premeditation was alleged in the Information, the court a quo correctly concluded that this circumstance was not proven. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[45]
	GR No. 153287 2008-06-30	NOEL GUILLERMO Y BASILIANO v. PEOPLE BRION,J.
We add that moral damages should be awarded as they are mandatory in murder and homicide cases without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[53] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is, therefore, in order.
	GR No. 170136 2008-01-18	PEOPLE v. . ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO CARPIO, J.
In this case, appellant killed April by hitting her head with a hammer and stabbing her neck using a bladed weapon. The medical and autopsy reports revealed that April sustained contusion, lacerated wounds and hematoma on the scalp and forehead, and a neck stab wound.[5] Clearly, the killing of April was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. There is treachery when the mode of the attack tends to insure the accomplishment of the criminal purpose without risk to the attacker arising from any defense the victim might offer.[6] Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength.[7] However, abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in treachery.[8]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
Too, we sustain the RTC and the CA's rejection of accused-appellant's defense founded on denial. Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial is the weakest of all defenses. It easily crumbles in the face of positive identification by accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[49] Here, no less than two eyewitnesses in Villaruel and victim Virginia positively and categorically named Glino as one of the Boji couple's assailants. Their identification of accused-appellant was unwavering, made in a simple and straightforward manner. Corollarily, they had no ill motive to testify falsely against Glino.[50] Upon the other hand, other than his bare denial, no corroborating evidence was put forth to substantiate accused-appellant's disparate account of the incident.