Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In his first statement, Joel de Jesus narrated that on June 13, 1996 at 6:30 in the morning after parking his tricycle at the corner of Regalado and Camaro Streets, Fairview, he was fetched by Lorenzo "Larry" delos Santos who was his neighbor at Ruby St. Larry was accompanied by his nephew Ogie, and a certain "Tisoy" who drove the owner-type jeep. Larry told him they were going to kill a big-time personality ("may titirahin na malaking tao"), whose name was Abadilla, and that they were going to ambush the latter at Katipunan Avenue. The ambush would be carried out by Joel, Larry, Tisoy, Ram (de Jesus), Cesar who was a policeman, and four (4) others. That same morning, they proceeded to Katipunan Avenue on board Larry's owner-type jeep without a plate and a Mitsubishi L-300 van. They carried .45 and 9 mm. pistols; Joel used a .38 caliber revolver. According to Joel, he only acted as lookout; Lorenzo, Ram and Cesar were the ones who fired shots, while Tisoy focused on a security guard at a store. After the shooting, they separated ways: the owner-type jeep he was riding in headed towards Santolan; Cesar's group split so that three (3) of them rode the L-300 van and the three (3) others boarded a car stolen from a woman driver. Upon reaching Commonwealth Avenue and Tandang Sora, they stopped at Glori Supermarket where all the firearms used were returned to the group, including the revolver earlier given to Joel. It was already dusk when Lorenzo dropped him off at the tricycle parking area at Camaro St.[16]
	GR No. 181084 2009-06-16	PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS PUNO, C.J.
In People v. Galapin,[73] People v. Continente,[74] United States v. Lasada,[75] People v. Mobe,[76] People v. Irinea,[77] People v. Rillorta,[78] People v. Cagalingan,[79] People v. Villanueva,[80] People v. Magno,[81] People v. del Rosario,[82] People v. Yrat,[83] People v. Saul,[84] and People v. Tamayo,[85] the principal and accomplice were ordered to pay jointly and severally the entire amount of the civil indemnity awarded to the victim. In People v. Sotto,[86] the accomplice was ordered to pay half of the amount of civil indemnity imposed by the trial court, while the principal was liable for the other half. In People v. Toring,[87] the principal, accomplice and the accessory were made jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the civil indemnity.
	GR NO. 173022 2007-01-23	PEOPLE v. DARIUS RODRIGO Y FAJARDO TINGA, J.
The failure to immediately report the kidnapping incident does not diminish the credibility of the witness. People react differently in particular situations and respond to stimuli in varying ways and degrees. Witnesses of startling occurrences do not react similarly, depending on the situation and their state of mind.[28] The victim and his relatives might have been cowed by fear of reprisal from the kidnappers. The accusation that the police authorities prodded Oliver Caparas to implicate Plata does not appear plausible. The burden of proving this allegation rests on the defense. However, these allegations were left unsubstantiated. There is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the police officers to pin down Plata.
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference its probability under the circumstances.[28] On the other hand, inconsistencies as to minor details and peripheral or collateral matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses nor the probative weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed.[29] Even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. As the Court declared in People v. Alolod:[30]
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the felony, the appellants should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellants are also civilly liable to the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 by way of moral damages.[57]
	GR NO. 141066 2005-02-17	EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.[37] Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.[38] Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[39]
	GR Nos. 137370-71 2003-09-29	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO PUNO, J.
There was also a paucity of proof to show that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes. For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as that of the killing, of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[100] Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim.[101] No such evidence was presented to prove the presence of this circumstance.
	GR No. 144621 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. ISAGANI GUITTAP Y PENGSON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself. Like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[20] Direct proof of a previous agreement need not be established, for conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of appellant pointing to a joint purpose, concerted action and community of interest. Nevertheless, except in the case of the mastermind of a crime, it must also be shown that appellant performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.[21]
	GR No. 123935 2001-12-14	BARRERA v. CA PARDO, J.
As to proof of title to the property, respondent Palabasan offered the following: Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167387,[20] Tax Declaration No. 03251,[21] the Deed of Absolute Sale[22] dated June 30, 1966, executed by Salome in favor of respondent Palabasan, the Contract of Lease,[23] with respondent Palabasan as the lessor and petitioner Leoncio Barrera as the lessee, and the decision of the Court of First Instance, Pasig, Branch XIX in Civil Case No. 38608,[24] finding respondent Palabasan to be the lawful owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167387.