Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. STEPHEN SANTILLANA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 193839 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. JAVIER CAÑAVERAS SERENO, C.J.
Thus, the second element is the subjective aspect of treachery.[69] It means that the accused must have made some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner that would insure the execution of the crime or render it impossible or hard for the person attacked to resort to self-defense or retaliation. The mode of attack, therefore, must have been planned by the offender and must not have sprung from an unexpected turn of events.[70]
	GR No. 153287 2008-06-30	NOEL GUILLERMO Y BASILIANO v. PEOPLE BRION,J.
As a rule, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the accused admits the killing and, by way of justification, pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts; he must then show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense. For that purpose, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.[41]
	GR No. 137497 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. CHARLES JOY FLORES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery on the ground that appellant suddenly attacked the victim.[20] However, it does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and unexpected, it is tainted with treachery.[21] In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted.[22] This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or to retaliate. The mode of attack, therefore, must be planned by the offender, and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[23] While the attack on Nathaniel was sudden and unexpected, there is no showing that appellant consciously adopted his mode of attack in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Neither was Nathaniel completely caught by surprise. He and appellant grappled for the knife. Also, he was able to run away before he was eventually killed. It bears emphasis that he struggled for the possession of the knife and had the opportunity to grab it and defend himself.
	GR Nos. 144907-09 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively or devoid of any plan, there can be no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected. In treachery, the mode of attack must not spring from the unexpected turn of events but must have been deliberately thought of by the offender.[6] As the meeting between the accused and Rializa was purely accidental, and in the absence of proof of any evil motive, it becomes obvious that the accused had no opportunity to plan the killing, much less map the strategy with which to implement it. No evidence on record
	GR No. 124309 2000-05-16	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO RIMORIN QUISUMBING, J.
The information alleged that each killing was qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate.[26] Eyewitness Osoteo said the victims' hands were tied behind their backs when appellant killed them, disabling the victims from defending themselves. Hence, treachery was sufficiently established.
	GR Nos. 119958-62 2000-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA QUISUMBING, J.
The Information alleged that the killing was attended by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. As to Sergio, treachery did not attend the commission of the crime because the attack was preceded by an argument.[35] In treachery, the mode of attack must be planned and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[36] Likewise, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling did not attend the killing of Sergio because he gave sufficient and immediate provocation for the attack when he hit Joseph with the tanduay bottle. Dwelling is aggravating under Article 14, No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code only if the offended party has not given provocation.
	GR Nos. 95891-92 2000-02-28	PEOPLE v. OSMUNDO FUERTES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q: Now, on November 1, 1986, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, can you tell the Honorable Court where were you? A: I was in our residence. Q: Now, during said time and date while you were in your house, can you recall of any incident that happened. A: Yes. ATTY. VALENTEROS, JR: Q: Can you tell the Honorable Court, what that incident was? A: There were two boys who arrived in our house, one is white and other is black, and their ages were from 16 to 19 years old, respectively, if I am not mistaken and together with them were two young boys, male. x x x x x x x x x Q: Now, when Dodo Fuertes arrived in your house with Antonio Gibone and Samuel Arceño, can you tell the Court what did Dodo Fuertes do? A: When Dodo Fuertes arrived in our house, he went upstairs and upon seeing the two boys, he said, now you were already caught and you are picking things in the hacienda, you are thieves. Q: Now, what else did Dodo Fuertes do while he was in your house? A: After scolding the two boys, Jack called him to our kitchen. Q: Did he go, when Jack called him? A: Yes, together with Jack. ATTY. MANIWANG: It was Jack who called Dodo. ATTY. VALENTEROS, JR.: Q: What did he do there? A: They have (sic) a secret conversation, which we can not hear. Q: How long did they talk with each other? A: If I am not mistaken, about five minutes. Q: Now, after their conversation, can you tell the Court, what happened? A: After that secret conversation, they went back to the balcony and then Jack called Dodo Fuertes, what to do, and according to Dodo Fuertes 'I am entrusting them to you, take care of them'."[77] As a crime, murder is looked upon as "[o]ne of the instances when man descends to a level lower than that of a beast, for it is non-instinctive killing, a deliberate destruction of a member of the same species for reasons other than survival."[78] Nowhere is it more evident than in this case.