Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO NANAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 178321 2011-10-05	PEOPLE v. CONRADO LAOG Y RAMIN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape.[47]Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly established by the prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only. Thus we ruled in People v. Macabales[48]
	GR No. 175330 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO CAPITLE CARPIO, J.
Based on Paat's testimony, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence justifying Capitle's conviction. There is more than one circumstance: (1) the victim was gunned down at the corner of Orambo Drive and St. Jude St., Mandaluyong City; (2) Paat heard several gunshots coming from that area; (3) Paat saw four men, including Nagares and Capitle, coming from the corner of Orambo Drive and St. Jude St. and running away towards Shaw Blvd.; (4) the four men, including Nagares and Capitle, were all carrying guns; and (5) prosecution witness Constantino saw Nagares, together with several other men, shot the victim. To the unprejudiced mind, the foregoing circumstances, when analyzed and taken together, leads to no other conclusion except that of appellants' culpability for the victim's death.[20]
	GR No. 174066 2010-10-12	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO NARZABAL Y CASTELO MENDOZA, J.
In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the accused killed a woman.[31] Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[32]
	GR No. 173510 2010-03-15	ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.[14] Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.[15]
	GR No. 172326 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. [17] In this regard, we have held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.[18]
	GR No. 137404 2003-02-14	PEOPLE v. JOSE CASITAS JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
The pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when analyzed and taken together, definitely lead to no other conclusion than that appellant perpetrated the dastardly deed.[21]
	GR No. 146247 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON BELLOSILLO, J.
has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority, and, (c) the surrender must be voluntary.[19] Resorting to sophistry, the accused argues that he was not arrested but "fetched" as he voluntarily went with the policemen when they came for him. This attempt at semantics is futile and absurd. That he did not try to escape or resist arrest after he was taken into custody
	GR No. 137518 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM MENDOZA, J.
We do not agree. For voluntary surrender to be considered, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender was not actually arrested; (2) he surrendered to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and (3) his surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because (a) he acknowledges his guilt or (b) he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[34] In the case at bar, while Suyum and Ocania went to the bodyguard of the Municipal Mayor and the barangay outpost, respectively, it is not clear that they did so because they sought to surrender.
	GR No. 139578 2002-02-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BANIEGA Y MORALES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court also awarded P20,000.00 as temperate damages which can only be awarded if the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss, the amount of which cannot be proved with certainty.[22] Since only the amount of P6,000.00 was duly proved as actual damages and testimonial as well as documentary evidence indicates that the family incurred additional expenses more than what was duly receipted, temperate damages may be reasonably awarded. The trial court's award, however, should be reduced to P10,000.00. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is maintained.[23]