Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JERONICO M. LOBINO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211159 2015-03-18	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO OLOVERIO LEONEN, J.
(a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[33]
	GR No. 211159 2015-03-18	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO OLOVERIO LEONEN, J.
that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.[43]
	GR No. 181701 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO DOLLENDO PEREZ, J.
The law provides that an offender acts with treachery when he "commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[37] There is, thus, treachery when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly no inkling of what the assailant was about to do.[38]
	GR No. 189981 2011-03-09	PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO VELASCO JR., J.
Treachery exists when "the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[18] What is important in ascertaining the existence of treachery is the fact that the attack was made swiftly, deliberately, unexpectedly, and without a warning, thus affording the unsuspecting victim no chanceto resist or escape the attack.[19] In People v. Lobino, We held that a sudden attack against an unarmed victim constitutes treachery.[20]
	GR No. 135981 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. MARIVIC GENOSA PANGANIBAN, J.
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.[77] To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity.[78]