Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE

This case has been cited 20 times or more.

	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
There is treachery when: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.[46] The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves the victim unable to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense.[47] It is the suddenness of the attack coupled with the inability of the victim to defend himself or to retaliate that brings about treachery; consequently, treachery may still be appreciated even if the victim was facing the assailant.[48]
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
Neither can petitioner Bangayan claim any deprivation of due process when the trial court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Lao's testimony without any motion or prayer from respondent RCBC. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. [133] This right, however, has always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. [134] What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine. [135]
	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[21] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[22]
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
Paragraph 16 of Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.[46] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[47]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
While appellant was not placed in a police line-up for identification by AAA, the absence of such police line-up does not make AAA's identification of appellant as the one (1) who raped her, unreliable. There is no law or police regulation requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every case. Even if there was no police line-up, there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or instigated to the witness by the police.[31] What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the person charged was the malefactor.[32]
	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The lower court was correct in appreciating treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[46] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[47] It was clearly established that Edwin Labini, while talking to Pablo Lusabio, Jr. face to face, was suddenly stabbed by the latter with a ten-inch bladed weapon for no reason at all. The suddenness of the stabbing and the fact that Edwin Labini was unarmed gave him no opportunity to defend himself. It is likewise apparent that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack, making sure that the victim would have no chance to defend himself by reason of the surprise attack.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz.: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself.[29]
	GR No. 168173 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES BRION, J.
There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery.[72] To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.[73] A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.[74] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[75]
	GR No. 182248 2008-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
However, the right has always been understood as requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. What is proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine. The right is a personal one and may be waived expressly or impliedly. There is an implied waiver when the party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone. If by his actuations, the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine wholly or in part the witnesses against him, his right to cross-examine is impliedly waived.[70] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code[25] classifies robbery with homicide as a crime against property[26] with the following elements: 1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against persons; 2) personal property thus taken belongs to another; 3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and 4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in its generic sense, was committed.[27] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life.[28] So long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[29] 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. It is likewise not necessary to identify who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound on the victim.[30] 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.[31]
	GR No. 172752 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON REYES, R.T., J.
The essence of treachery lies in the attack which comes without warning, and is swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape,[50] ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[51] What is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.[52] Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace.[53]
	GR NO. 173479 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. JUAN CABBAB GARCIA, J.
. ATTY. YANURIA: Q. In other words, it was you being shot out by Segundino Calpito and Juan Cabbab but you did not see them shoot at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan? A. I saw Juan Cabbab and Segundino fire at Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan (the witness using the word "banat") and when they already fell down, they continued firing attempt and in my case I rolled and they also fired at me. [11] The above testimony adequately showed that Belmes was able to look at and see appellant at the time he perpetrated the crime. To our mind, Belmes could not have made a mistake with respect to appellant's identity, what with the fact that just a few hours before the incident, it was even appellant himself who invited Belmes and his group to play poker. For sure, Belmes had a face-to-face encounter with appellant before the assault and thus would be able to unmistakably recognize him especially because at the time of the attack, Belmes was just eight (8) meters away from appellant and conditions of visibility were very good at the time of the incident as it was only around 4:00 in the afternoon. Jurisprudence recognizes that it is the most natural reaction of victims of violence to strive to see the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[12]
	GR NO. 173479 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. JUAN CABBAB GARCIA, J.
Conformably with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan are each entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,[23] to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[24] and to exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00.[25]
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the present case, the prosecution had met the requisites for alevosia to be appreciated: (1) at the time of the attack the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of the attack employed by him.[70] Dean lived to tell about the swiftness of the attempt against his life: Q : After getting the dividend certificate where did you proceed next?
	GR NO. 171449 2006-10-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.[33] The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery.[34] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. So long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[35] The original design must have been robbery, and the homicide, even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequently to the killing.[36]
	GR NO. 170191 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU CALLEJO, SR., J.
The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the intention of the felony is to rob and the felony is accompanied by rape. The rape must be contemporaneous with the commission of the robbery. We note that aside from raping the victim, appellant Rodolfo Suyu inserted his finger in her sexual organ. Appellant Suyu, thus, committed sexual assault as defined and penalized in Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8353.[91] Also, aside from Rodolfo Suyu, Cainglet raped the victim. Nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible felony of robbery with rape and any crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with rape.[92]
	GR NO. 166479 2006-02-28	RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The lower court was correct in appreciating treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[48] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[49] It was clearly established that private complainant, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon by petitioner for no reason at all. The suddenness of the shooting and the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant with no option but to run for his life. It is likewise apparent that petitioner consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack making sure that private complainant will have no chance to defend himself by reason of the surprise attack. Petitioner's claim that the shooting was not sudden because private complainant was observing him from the time he alighted from the tricycle is belied by the fact that private complainant was not able to run when he was first fired upon. Though private complainant was looking at him, the former was not forewarned by any outward sign that an attack was forthcoming. It was only after the first shot that he felt his life was in danger.
	GR No. 153119 2004-04-13	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO REYES Y MAGANO CALLEJO, SR., J.
First. Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property.[45] The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim's age is applied only to crimes against persons and honor.[46] The bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be properly considered, the prosecution must adduce evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim.[47] In this case, the appellant killed the victim because the latter started to shout. There was no intent to insult nor commit disrespect to the victim on account of the latter's sex.
	GR Nos. 137949-52 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. GEORGE 'JORGE' BOLINGET Y BAGTAN PUNO, J.
We modify the solidary civil liabilities of the appellants imposed by the trial court. The heirs of each victim are entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00, without need for proof other than that death occurred as a result of the crime.[50] They are also entitled to moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00.[51] In accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,[52] appellants are liable to pay the heirs of each victim, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in view of the presence of an aggravating circumstance.[53] Anent actual damages, the defense admitted the funeral expenses of Cesar Reyes amounting to P32,579.00.[54] It also admitted the hospital expenses of Reyes in the amount of P17,300.00.[55] As to the victim Nestor Visitacion, the trial court issued an order dated February 28, 1995 stating that counsels of both sides stipulated on the following: That the wife of the late Lt. Nestor Visitacion by the name of Lina M. Visitacion incurred expenses in the amount of P88,096.65;
	GR No. 121177 2003-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA PER CURIAM
In People vs. Escote, [56] we held that "treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery." The killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown.[57] Considering that the victims in this case of robbery with homicide are young children, aged 7, 8 and 14, the killing was aggravated by treachery.