Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMAN DERILO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182518 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. MUHAMMAD ABDULAH NACHURA, J.
As in Delim,[28] we also find, in this case, appellant guilty only of homicide defined and penalized by Article 249[29] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Treachery and evident premeditation, the circumstances alleged in the informations, cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder, considering that these were not proven during the trial. It is an ancient but revered doctrine that qualifying and aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration, for the purpose of increasing the penalty to be imposed, must be proved with equal certainty as those which establish the commission of the criminal offense. It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt; every qualifying or aggravating circumstance alleged to have been present and to have attended such killing must similarly be shown by the same degree of proof.[30]
	GR No. 167503 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. LUISITO BAUN Y MERCADO AZCUNA, J.
Nevertheless, the Court sustains appellant's conviction based on the evidence presented by the prosecution before the trial court. People v. Derilo[13] held: While it may be argued that appellant entered an improvident plea of guilty when re-arraigned, we find no need, however, to remand a case to the lower court for further reception of evidence. As a rule, this Court has set aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital offenses because of improvidence thereof and when such plea is the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment. However, where the trial court receives evidence to determine precisely whether or not the accused has erred in admitting his guilt, the manner in which the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or not) loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is based on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense charged.[14]
	GR NO. 171271 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive evidence;[14] that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[15] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflections upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. To be considered, the following elements must be proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[16]
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
The victim gave the statement on February 22, 1994 which the Court infers to be the time when the accused had determined to eliminate his victim. The fact that he was later positively identified as the killer of Mr. Gutierrez indicates that he had clung to his determination to kill him. Considering further that it took the accused thirteen days within which to kill his victim shows that he had sufficient time to reflect on his course of action."[48] Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive evidence;[49] that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[50] Essentially, premeditation is present if,
	GR Nos. 116200-02 2001-06-21	PEOPLE v. PO3 ELEUTERIO TAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself, i.e., by proof beyond reasonable doubt:[31]
	GR No. 128105 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. LUDRING VALDEZ PARDO, J.
Considering that the crime occurred on January 9, 1993, before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 which amended the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty for murder in this case is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.[19] In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the medium period, or reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.[20]
	GR No. 131814 2000-03-15	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA PER CURIAM
Since the trial court extensively received evidence in determining the guilt of the accused, the manner in which the plea of guilt was made, whether improvidently or not, loses its significance for the simple reason that the conviction of the accused was based on the evidence proving his commission of the offense charged and not on his admission in open court; his conviction may only be set aside when the improvident plea of guilt was the sole basis for the condemnatory judgment.[6]