Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MANUEL DANIELA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 195244 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ESUGON Y AVILA BERSAMIN, J.
To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the Prosecution must prove the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (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) the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.[22] A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.[23]
	GR No. 175978 2009-02-12	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA BRION, J.
A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery.[44] 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. [45] 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.[46] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[47]
	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. 173479 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. JUAN CABBAB GARCIA, J.
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.[19]
	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. 134531-32 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. PERLITO TONYACAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The raison d'etre behind the rule is that courts must proceed with caution where the punishable penalty is death for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty.[16] Improvident plea of guilty on the part of the accused when capital crimes are involved should be avoided since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully comprehended the meaning and import and consequences of his plea.[17] Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid this Court on appellate review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.[18]
	GR No. 150083 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. HENRY CARPIO Y NATIVIDAD CARPIO MORALES, J.
If appellant can no longer return the rest of the asported items, however, he is obliged to make reparation for their value, taking into consideration their price and their special sentimental value to the offended parties.[34]
	GR No. 125784 2003-11-19	PEOPLE v. DINDO VALLEJO Y MASOLA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 8 simply provides that the information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio Suela [48] that the use of the word `must' indicates that the requirement is mandatory and failure to comply with it means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not alleged in the information. Although the rule took effect on December 1, 2000, the same may be applied retroactively[49] because it is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.[50]