Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. AMADOR SEGOBRE y QUIJANO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
The UP was founded on June 18, 1908 through Act 1870 to provide advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and to give professional and technical training to deserving students.63 Despite its establishment as a body corporate,[64] the UP remains to be a "chartered institution"[65] performing a legitimate government function. It is an institution of higher learning, not a corporation established for profit and declaring any dividends.[66] In enacting Republic Act No. 9500 (The University of the Philippines Charter of 2008), Congress has declared the UP as the national university[67] "dedicated to the search for truth and knowledge as well as the development of future leaders."[68]
	GR No. 192818 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. PRINCE FRANCISCO Y ZAFE VELASCO JR., J.
While appellant may claim that the attack is frontal and Ramil had the opportunity to defend himself, the Court explained in People v. Segobre that "treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate."[42] This is the unfortunate case of Ramil who was unable to repel the attack except only to plead for his life. As the CA aptly pointed out, even if Ramil was attacked frontally--which is definitely not the case--he was bereft of any opportunity to defend himself due to the swiftness and suddenness of the attack.
	GR No. 180421 2009-10-30	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ALPAPARA QUISUMBING, J.
The rest of the issues raised by the appellants delve on the appreciation of evidence by the appellate court. At the risk of sounding trite, we reiterate that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under cross examination. The trial court's findings on such matters, when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on this Court, unless it is shown that the court a quo has plainly overlooked substantial facts which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[28]
	GR No. 183566 2009-05-08	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO VELASCO JR., J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, offering an unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16] There is treachery even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, with the victims having no opportunity to repel it or defend themselves, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.[17] The records show that Adrian was suddenly attacked with a bolo, and the most he could do at that moment was to shield himself somehow from the blow with his arm. Another blow to Adrian's back showed the vulnerability of his position as he had his back turned to accused-appellant and was not able to flee from attack. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victims were warned of the danger to their lives where they were defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace.[18]
	GR No . 172973 2008-12-18	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO ABARE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In conclusion, following current jurisprudence, for the death of Samsom Cuyogan, civil indemnity is awarded in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[45] Moreover, pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Ortiz,[46] moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are likewise awarded. Lastly, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.[47]
	GR No. 172370 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. FLORENDA CASTRO REYES, R.T., J.
In Malana v. People,[51] We convicted the accused of murder and ordered him to pay the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. The same civil indemnity and moral damages were awarded by the Court to the heirs of the murdered victims in People v. Segobre,[52] People v. Ausa,[53] and in People v. Piliin.[54]
	GR No. 181631 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. JOSE BALINAS TINGA, J.
In line with recent jurisprudence, we find the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of Sayson correct and proper without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime.We increase the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 in accordance with our ruling in People v. Sison.[25] The award of exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is likewise warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Exemplary damages are awarded when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[26] Although the prosecution presented evidence that the heirs had incurred expenses, no receipts were presented. The award of temperate damages, in the amount of P25,000.00, to the heirs of the victim is justified. Temperate damages are awarded where no documentary evidence of actual damages was presented in the trial because it is reasonable to presume that, when death occurs, the family of the victim incurred expenses for the wake and funeral.