Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSE TORREFIEL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 159450 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. OLIVIA ALETH GARCIA CRISTOBAL BERSAMIN, J.
There is no question about the findings of fact being based on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution. The decisions of both lower courts are remarkable for their thoroughness and completeness. In fact, the accused did not impugn the findings of fact, and confined herself only to the validity of the information and the legality of her letter due to its being held admissible as evidence against her. Although she decried her failure to present her evidence on account of her having demurred without express leave of court, that, too, was not an obstacle to the correctness of the findings of fact against her. Thus, we sustain the findings of fact, for findings of the CA upon factual matters are conclusive and ought not to be disturbed unless they are shown to be contrary to the evidence on record.[10]
	GR No. 169871 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. JOSE N. MEDIADO BERSAMIN, J.
We reiterate that findings of the CA upon factual matters are conclusive and ought not to be disturbed unless they are shown to be contrary to the evidence on record.[5] Here, Jose has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that the CA committed any reversible error in making its findings of fact against Jose.
	GR No. 180507 2008-11-20	PEOPLE v. NESTOR BAJADA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Bajada's alibi likewise deserves no merit. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense and that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[20] Bajada himself admitted, however, that the travel time from Bayate, Liliw, Laguna to the crime scene is only 15 minutes by jeep. Hence, it was possible for him to be at the crime scene at or around the time the offense was committed.
	GR No. 178545 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. LEO BARRIGA TINGA, J.
However, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of the commission of the crime with the aid of armed men. The information alleged that the accused were "armed with short firearms." There is ample evidence on record establishing the presence of this circumstance. Under paragraph 1, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, "the aid of armed men" qualifies a killing to murder. Since treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the qualifying circumstance of killing "with the aid of armed men" could not be absorbed in treachery.[61]