Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DELADA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 145002 2006-01-24	PEOPLE v. PFC FLORO MALEJANA AZCUNA, J.
Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself.[37] 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.[38] The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[39] Thus, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[40]
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The trial court awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim. Said amount must be reduced to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[25]
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, we agree with appellant that the same should be considered in his favor. The evidence shows that appellant surrendered to a person in authority a day after the incident. This fact was not contested by the prosecution. Notwithstanding this, the presence of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance will not affect the penalty to be imposed upon appellant. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same code states that when the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties and the crime is attended by a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. [23] Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by the trial court.
	GR No. 145166 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ROMERO Y BARBACINA AZCUNA, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[59] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby, ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.[60]
	GR No. 153781 2003-09-24	PEOPLE v. MATEO GREGORIO Y CARPIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the trial court awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. In accordance with prevailing judicial policy, the civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00.[22] The award of moral damages has no factual basis. However, the heirs of the victim should be awarded temperate damages of P25,000.00, it appearing that they are entitled to actual damages but the amount thereof cannot be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove the same.[23]