Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JIMMY ALO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant further argues that the lower court erred in failing to consider voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. On this point, the following requirements must be satisfied: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[115] Records show, however, that leaflets and posters were circulated for information to bring the killer of Nemesio to justice. A team of police investigators from La Trinidad, Benguet then went to Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya to invite appellant for questioning. Only then did he return to Benguet. But he denied the charge of killing the victim. Clearly, appellant's claimed surrender was neither spontaneous nor voluntary.
	GR Nos. 131736-37 2002-03-11	PEOPLE v. JOEY MANLANSING Y AMBROSIO QUISUMBING, J.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without any risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the victim's part.[54] While mere suddenness of attack does not automatically mean treachery,[55] in these cases the narration of events before and during the commission of the attacks clearly indicate the presence of treachery. Appellants were allowed inside the house of the couple. They were even given supper after which the elderly couple went upstairs to their bedroom. Appellants remained downstairs and continued watching television. As the OSG correctly points out, the victims in extending their hospitality to their tenants, had neither hint nor suspicion of the fate that Mario had in store for them. When Mario lured Magin to the phone, the latter was unaware he would be attacked.
	GR No. 130963 2001-11-27	PEOPLE v. MARIANO PASCUA PUNO, J.
Again, the basic issues in the case at bar deal with the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is an established rule that when the issue concerns credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally will not overturn the findings of the trial courts. The latter courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court. In the case at bar, we find no basis to depart from the rule.[7]
	GR No. 133225 2001-07-26	PEOPLE v. EDWIN CONCEPCION Y JACINTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, an overall scrutiny of the records of this case leads us to no other conclusion than that the trial court was correct in holding that the accused-appellants, acting together, committed the crime charged. It is an established rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the appellate courts generally will not overturn the findings of the trial courts. They are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court.[29] In this case, we find no basis to depart from the established rule. What remains to be determined is the correctness of the penalty imposed on the felony committed.