Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR Nos. 204481-82 2015-10-14	ALBERT G. AMBAGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.[52] As applied, the Sandiganbayan would have been correct in holding petitioner criminally liable if he indeed made the utterance immediately before the shooting incident. However, this Court is not inclined to believe that petitioner indeed made the declaration that started the fray. The court a quo failed to take note of substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of star prosecution witnesses Patam and Ronnel Bawalan. These contradictions refer not only to minor details but even to the facts constituting important aspects of the case, seriously eroding the weight of the evidence of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on the culpability of petitioner Ambagan.
	GR No. 159450 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. OLIVIA ALETH GARCIA CRISTOBAL BERSAMIN, J.
The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set forth in the information is to enable the accused to adequately prepare her defense.[12] As to the sufficiency of the allegation of the time or date of the commission of the offense, Section 6 and Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rules applicable,[13] provide: Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed.
	GR No. 173248 2008-11-03	PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO BRION, J.
Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 less the age of the victim at the time of death) x (Gross Annual Income less the Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses)[51]
	GR No. 172871 2008-09-16	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE CASTA Y CAROLINO BRION, J.
Treachery, the qualifying circumstance alleged against the appellant, exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[41] This definition sets out what must be shown by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. To reiterate, the essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[42]
	GR No. 172696 2008-08-11	PEOPLE v. BENITO BALLESTEROS Y GRAGASIN BRION, J.
In convicting the appellant of murder, the trial court appreciated treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[43]
	GR No. 174479 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA BRION, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[67]
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The heirs of Ramon should also be indemnified for loss of earning capacity pursuant to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code.[71] Consistent with our previous decisions,[72] the formula for the indemnification of loss of earning capacity is: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income (GAI) - Living Expenses
	GR No. 169425 2008-03-04	ROBERTO LICYAYO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the heirs of Rufino should be indemnified for loss of earning capacity pursuant to Article 2206 of the New Civil Code[54] in the amount of P580,050.00. In accordance with current jurisprudence,[55] the formula for the indemnification for loss of earning capacity is: