Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 201565 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established:[53] (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[54]
	GR No. 191723 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[50]
	GR No. 188710 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. MATIMANAY WATAMAMA SERENO, C.J.
For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the offender killed the victim, and (2) the killing was done through treachery, or by any of the five other qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information. [29] There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The mere suddenness of the attack does not amount to treachery. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning and is done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim with no chance to resist or escape. Thus, even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[30]
	GR No. 194564 2013-04-10	SERGIO SOMBOL v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
For the first element of unlawful aggression to be present, jurisprudence dictates that there must be "an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person … It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[26]
	GR No. 199875 2012-11-21	PEOPLE v. EDWIN ISLA Y ROSSELL MENDOZA, J.
Evidently, there was no treachery. For treachery to exist "the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make." It is important in ascertaining the existence of treachery that it be proven that the attack was made swiftly, deliberately, unexpectedly, and without a warning, thus affording the unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape the attack.[19] In the case at bench, Isla's attack was not sudden, swift, deliberate and without warning. He stabbed AAA during the course of the struggle. Thus, the prosecution failed to show that the stabbing was so calculated as not to afford AAA the chance to evade the attack.
	GR No. 197807 2012-04-16	PEOPLE v. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING VELASCO JR., J.
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[19]
	GR No. 195239 2012-03-07	PEOPLE v. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA VELASCO JR., J.
We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality." As We have reiterated in the recent People v. Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.[16]
	GR No. 195665 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. DAVID MANINGDING VELASCO JR., J.
We have held in People v. Gabrino[33] that the factual determination of the RTC should not be disturbed unless there is a showing of misinterpretation of materials facts or that it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion: We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality." As We have reiterated in the very recent case of People v. Jose Pepito Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.
	GR No. 191266 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO VELASCO JR., J.
In the present case, the prosecution and the defense presented very different facts of the case. It was, therefore, obligatory upon the RTC to determine which of these facts should be given great weight and credence. As We held in People v. Gabrino: [39]