Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Consistently, this Court has declared that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the defense must establish the physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof.[55] The facts in this case illustrate that there was no physical impossibility for the accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime, considering that Manila is just a short ride away from Gumaca, Quezon.
	GR No. 188610 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALBERT SANCHEZ Y GALERA VELASCO JR., J.
The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[23] The trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the killing of Jufer.
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it is already considered a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.[62] Hence, the Court of Appeals acted accordingly in sentencing each of the appellants to reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 185724 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JESSIE MALATE Y CAÑETE VELASCO JR., J.
This Court has been consistent in declaring that for alibi to prosper, the defense must establish the physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[22] The facts in this case illustrate that there was no physical impossibility for Malate to be at the scene of the crime, considering that Barangays CCC and DDD are both within the municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan and are walking distance from each other.
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63(4) of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in this case, and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance. As earlier determined, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the aggravating circumstances of treachery and use of an unlicensed firearm were present in the instant case. Nonetheless, the aggravating circumstance of treachery in this case cannot be applied for offsetting because it was already considered as a qualifying circumstance.[59] Thus, only the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm may be utilized in offsetting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
	GR No. 173023 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. RESURRECCION RANIN QUISUMBING, J.
There is treachery when the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. [22] The essence of evident premeditation, for its part, is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. [23]
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accordingly, the death penalty imposed by the RTC on appellant should be modified. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the instant case, and treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already considered as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.[67]