Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ULYSSES M. CAWALING

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 200465 2015-04-20	JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Section 7[30] of Rule 117 lays down the requisites in order that the defense of double jeopardy may prosper. There is double jeopardy when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.[31] As to the first requisite, the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[32]
	GR No. 207629 2014-10-22	PEOPLE v. ARNEL VILLALBA Y DURAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant Arnel had already admitted to stabbing Maximillian with a barbecue stick, which eventually caused the latter's death. Unless he is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court his claim of self-defense as a justifying circumstance, accused-appellant Arnel's conviction for the crime of homicide becomes inevitable.[35]
	GR No. 184500 2012-09-11	PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA PEREZ, J.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, however, cannot be appreciated as it is deemed absorbed in treachery.[76]
	GR No. 174483 2009-03-31	PEOPLE v. RAMON REGALARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Q When Bienvenido and Sotero caught up with Rolando Sevilla; and the three (3) other accused also joined the two (2), how far was your distance to them? A More or less 14 to 15 meters.[21] We agree with the findings of the two courts below as to the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. The agreement to commit a crime, however, may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent. It does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and each incurs the same criminal liability.[22] We quote with approval the findings and observations of the CA, thus:The eyewitnesses' account surrounding Rolando Sevilla's death shows that the accused-appellants performed concerted acts in pursuit of a common objective. Sotero, Bienvenido, and Ramon, armed with nightsticks, and Noel armed with a knife, seven inches in length, beat Rolando Sevilla. All five accused-appellants caught up with the victim, blocked all means through which the victim could escape and ensured the achievement of their plan to kill Rolando Sevilla even as the latter already fell to the ground. Accused-appellant Marciano hit the victim on his jaw and later, ordered his co-accused to kill and tie the victim. Upon hearing Marciano's instruction, Bienvenido Regalario tied Rolando's neck, hands and feet with a rope. The collective act of the accused-appellants is sufficient to make them co-principals to the killing.[23]
	GR No. 157472 2007-09-28	SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY v. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, there is double jeopardy when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.[24]
	GR NO. 160727 2007-06-26	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DANILO L. CONCEPCION GARCIA, J.
When the law speaks of "until finally disposed," the reference should include the final disposition of the liquidation and dissolution processes since it is within the power of the SEC by law,[32] or as incident of or in continuation of its already acquired jurisdiction over the petition for suspension of payment,[33] to order the dissolution/liquidation of a corporation and accordingly appoint a liquidator. In fine, the continuing exercise of jurisdiction by the SEC over the liquidation and dissolution of the EYCO Group is warranted. Once jurisdiction attaches, the court cannot be ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another body. The only recognized exceptions to the rule, which find no sway in the present case, arise when the statute expressly so provides or when the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.[34]
	GR No. 149152 2007-02-02	RUFINO S. MAMANGUN v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II, of the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty.[7]
	GR NO. 129875 2005-09-30	JOVITO CABUSLAY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
One who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the killing. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger. With clear and convincing evidence, all the following elements of self-defense must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.[47]
	GR No. 127368 2001-12-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DREW QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses, since it is the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witnesses and their manner of testifying.[19] However, this rule does not apply in the present case, for the judge who penned the decision was not the same judge who heard the prosecution witnesses testify.[20] Hence, the records were subjected to a minute scrutiny to determine if the trial court unduly relied on the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, or if it overlooked some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.