Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189818 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL LINDO Y VERGARA VELASCO JR., J.
Both the RTC and the CA, however, erred in finding only one count of rape in the present case. It is settled that in a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are made the subject of the assignment of errors or not.[17] From the information filed, it is clear that accused-appellant was charged with two offenses, rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and rape as an act of sexual assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2. Accused-appellant was charged with having carnal knowledge of AAA, who was under twelve years of age at the time, under par. 1(d) of Art. 266-A, and he was also charged with committing "an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person" under the second paragraph of Art. 266-A. Two instances of rape were indeed proved at the trial, as it was established that there was contact between accused-appellant's penis and AAA's labia; then AAA's testimony established that accused-appellant was able to partially insert his penis into her anal orifice. The medical examination also supports the finding of rape under Art. 266-A par. 1(d) and Art. 266-A par. 2, considering the extragenital injuries and abrasions in the anal region reported.
	GR No. 172357 2010-03-19	PEOPLE v. MARCELO BUSTAMANTE Y ZAPANTA DEL CASTILLO, J.
monthly salary of P15,000.00 x x x be marked as Exh. "EEE-1" and the signature of a person who issued the certification be marked as Exh. "EEE-2".[26] The formula[27] for unearned income is as follows: Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income (GAI) less Living Expenses (50% GAI)]
	GR No. 179944 2009-09-04	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ORTIZ QUISUMBING, J.
We, however, modify the award of civil indemnity. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity to be awarded should be P75,000.00, not P50,000.00, since the crime committed by the appellants is qualified by circumstances, including the use of firearms and of superior number, which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[23]
	GR No. 185841 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. ISMAEL DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The monthly income of Councilor Quinto was P18,749.00 or a gross annual income of P224,988.00. He was 47 years old at the time of his death. On the other hand, SPO1 Dalioan was 40 years old when he was killed and was earning P5,600.00 a month or a total of P67,200.00 gross annual income. The formula[77] for unearned income is as follows: Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income (G.A.I.) less Living expenses (50% G.A.I.)]
	GR No. 178205 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. LEO QUEMEGGEN NACHURA, J.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if it is committed a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime.[29]
	GR No. 177827 2009-03-30	PEOPLE v. ANSELMO BERONDO VELASCO JR., J.
On the award of damages, the appellate court did not grant actual damages due to lack of proof of actual expenses, but instead granted temperate damages in the amount of PhP 50,000. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered when pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. In this case, it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim incurred funeral and burial expenses although the exact amount was not established. In line with current jurisprudence, the amount of temperate damages should, however, be decreased to PhP 25,000.[17]
	GR No. 178196 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. RUDY BUDUHAN Y BULLAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The two courts below committed a mistake, however, in convicting the appellants separately of the crime of Homicide for the death of Romualde Almeron. It bears stressing that in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.[106]