Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LOLITO HONOR Y ALIGWAY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
In the case at bar, it was clearly shown that Estose was deprived of any means to ward off the sudden and unexpected attack by accused-appellant. The evidence showed that accused-appellant hid behind a coconut tree and when Estose passed by the tree, completely unaware of any danger, accused-appellant immediately hacked him with a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry the blows with his bare hands and as a result, he got wounded. Furthermore, when Estose tried to retreat, stumbling in the process, accused-appellant even took advantage of this and stabbed him resulting in his death. Evidently, the means employed by accused-appellant assured himself of no risk at all arising from the defense which the deceased might make. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[23] Without a doubt, treachery attended the killing.
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
In the case at bar, the victim was only walking along the street when accused-appellant suddenly shot him at the back several times. He had no opportunity to defend himself, because he had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming. It likewise appears that the means was deliberately planned. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[48] Evidently, treachery attended the killing.
	GR No. 177573 2010-07-07	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO ASIS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[33]
	GR No. 168169 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO TABARNERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Solicitor General likewise alleges that a civil indemnity ex delito in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded. Article 2206[67] of the Civil Code authorizes the award of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime. The award of said civil indemnity is mandatory, and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] However, current jurisprudence have already increased the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to P75,000.00.[69] We, therefore, award this amount to the heirs of Ernesto.
	GR No. 184702 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER TALITA ABAD, J.
Talita mainly relied on denial which, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense because it can easily be fabricated.[23] The Court held in People v. Bandin[24] that denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses on affirmative matters. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witnesses, prevails over denial which, if not supported by clear and convincing proof, is a negative and self-serving evidence, undeserving of weight in law.[25]