Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on "clear and convincing evidence."[126] Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself.[127] Its existence "cannot be presumed."[128] As with the finding of guilt of the accused, "[a]ny doubt as to [its] existence . . . [should] be resolved in favor of the accused."[129]
	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on "clear and convincing evidence."[126] Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself.[127] Its existence "cannot be presumed."[128] As with the finding of guilt of the accused, "[a]ny doubt as to [its] existence . . . [should] be resolved in favor of the accused."[129]
	GR No. 136892 2002-04-11	PEOPLE v. SUEENE DISCALSOTA Y JUGAR PANGANIBAN, J.
"To justify the inference of deliberate premeditation, there must be a period sufficient in a judicial sense to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection and to allow the conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution of his will if he desires to hearken to its warning."[21] Where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable from the determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.[22] Hence, the lower court erred in holding that evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder.