Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184958 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. ANTHONY C. DOMINGO VELASCO JR., J.
Anthony's alibi, that he was at Alfredo Dalida's house, has no merit. Alibi is the weakest of defenses. To exonerate an accused, one must show that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the offense and that he was so far removed from the crime scene or its immediate vicinity that it could not have been possible for him to have committed the crime.[23] In this case, the trial court found that the house of Alfredo Dalida, Sr. was only 200 meters away from the crime scene. Such short distance makes it physically possible for Anthony to be at the scene of the crime. The Court has patiently reiterated the requisites for alibi to prosper, that is, the accused was not at the locus delictiwhen the offense was committed and it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission.[24] Anthony failed to comply with the time and distance requisites of alibi.
	GR No. 167278 2008-02-27	ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PUNO, CJ.
(i) compromising the case against SAMC in Civil Case No. 01-102504 before Branch 39, RTC Manila, without proper authority from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs in violation of Section 2316[11] of the Tariff and Customs Code, and without the approval of the President in violation of Section 4(d) of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 156 as amended by E.O. No. 38;[12]
	GR No. 167278 2008-02-27	ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PUNO, CJ.
We now come to the pivotal first charge facing petitioner that was left unresolved by the Court of Appeals in deference to this Court that of compromising the case against SAMC without prior authorization from the Commissioner of Customs in violation of Section 2316[25] of the Tariff and Customs Code, and without prior approval of the President as required by Section 4(d)[26] of E.O. No. 156 as amended by E.O. No. 38.
	GR No. 139531 2002-01-31	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BAGANO BELLOSILLO, J.
Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.[11] Proof of an actual planning of the perpetuation of the crime is not a condition precedent. From the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from their acts, it is evident that Bagano and Cañete were one in their intention to kill Jeremias Montecino. Hence, in accordance with the principle that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, the fact that it was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow on Montecino and Cañete's participation was limited to a mere embrace is immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them equal liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate for their acts.
	GR Nos. 97138-39 2000-09-28	PEOPLE v. EFREN TEMANEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The facts as found by the trial court show a clear-cut case of robbery and robbery with homicide. Great respect is accorded the factual conclusions of the trial court. The trial judge had the best opportunity to observe the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses. It formed first hand judgment as to whether particular witnesses were telling the truth or not.[27] Thus, absent misapprehension or misinterpretation of facts of weight and substance,[28] and absent any arbitrariness or irregularity,[29] the Court will not overturn its findings.