Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CELSO REYNES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184500 2012-09-11	PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA PEREZ, J.
To repeat, most of the prosecution witnesses are victims of the ambush. Being the aggrieved parties, they all desire justice for what had happened to them, thus, it is unnatural for them to falsely accuse someone other than the real culprits. Otherwise stated, it is very unlikely for these prosecution witnesses to implicate an innocent person to the crime. It has been correctly observed that the natural interest of witnesses, who are relatives of the victims, more so, the victims themselves, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the culprits would gain immunity.[64]
	GR No. 175195 2010-09-15	VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
As the evidence stands, the crime committed by petitioners is murder in view of the attending circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Murder, as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is the unlawful lolling of a person which is not parricide or infanticide, provided that treachery or evident premeditation, inter alia, attended the lulling. The presence of any one of the enumerated circumstances under Article 248 is enough to qualify a killing as murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. When more than one qualifying circumstance is proven, as in this case, the rule is that the other must be considered as generic aggravating.[34] In the present case, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation will be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of the penalty of death in the absence of any mitigating circumstance.[35] Since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346,[36] a law favorable to petitioners which took effect on June 24, 2006, the penalty that should be imposed on petitioners is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act provide: Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
	GR No. 181043 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MILLANO MUIT TINGA, J.
As for the penalty, the RTC did not err in imposing the penalty of death since the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for the purpose of extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration.[35] The death of the victim as a result of the kidnapping only serves as a generic aggravating circumstance for the rule is that when more than one qualifying circumstances are proven, the others must be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.[36]
	GR No. 178545 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. LEO BARRIGA TINGA, J.
The rule is that when more than one qualifying circumstances is proven, the others must be considered as generic aggravating.[64] The qualifying circumstance of "with the aid of armed men" serves in this case as a generic aggravating circumstance, meriting the imposition of the penalty of death in the absence of any mitigating circumstance.[65] However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346[66] which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court can only impose reclusion perpetua, which will be in lieu of the death penalty.
	GR No. 139528 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. NORMAN OBORDO Y BULALAKAW KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court was also correct in ruling that the killing of Homer was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the execution of an offense which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the challenge that the offended party might make.[34] It has two elements, to wit: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.[35] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor against the unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on the latter's part, depriving the latter of any real chance of defending himself.[36]