Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ZALDY CASINGAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 149430-32 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. CARMELO CATBAGAN PANGANIBAN, J.
To establish treachery, the following must be proven: 1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and 2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[66] It is also the running case law that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven.[67] Such attack must be sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, who is thus deprived of any real chance for self-defense, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[68]
	GR No. 142505 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FELIPE PANGANIBAN, J.
To prove this qualifying circumstance, the following must be shown: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. [63] Case law requires that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven.[64] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, thereby depriving the latter of any real opportunity for self-defense and ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[65]
	GR Nos. 131864-65 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294, however, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder is no longer treated as a separate offense, but only as a special aggravating circumstance. Moreover, under said Act, only one crime is committed, i.e., homicide or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm, and only one penalty shall be imposed on the accused.[22]
	GR No. 134004 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. SPO3 ANTONIO MENDOZA PUNO, J.
Anent the third assignment of error, the trial court was correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and convicting the accused Mendoza of murder and not homicide. To prove treachery, the following must be shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[42] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that the accused Mendoza shot Antonio suddenly and without warning. Antonio therefore did not have any opportunity to defend himself and to retaliate. It cannot also be gainsaid that the means of execution was deliberate and consciously adopted. The accused Mendoza went to the crime scene armed with a gun. He first lighted Antonio's face with the flashlight he carried with him, then fired at a vital part of Antonio's body.
	GR No. 135963 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO SABADO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
This contention is without merit. There is evident premeditation when the following elements are proven: (1) the time when appellant decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that appellant clung to the determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime, sufficient to allow appellant to reflect upon the consequences of the act.[24]