Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179448 2013-06-26	CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court is also not persuaded by the bare and uncorroborated allegation of petitioner that the loans covered by the promissory notes and the cashier's checks were personally transacted by Tan against his approved letter of credit, although he admittedly never saw Tan affix his signature thereto. Again, this allegation, as the RTC aptly observed, is not supported by established evidence. "It is settled that denials which are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence. [They merit] no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters."[32] The chain of events in this case, from the preparation of the promissory notes to the encashment of the cashier's checks, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and based on petitioner's own admission, established beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the unlawful acts alleged in the Informations.
	GR No. 172606 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. MELANIO NUGAS Y MAPAIT BERSAMIN, J.
The essence of treachery lies in the attack that comes without warning, and the attack is swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape, thereby ensuring its accomplishment without the risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Treachery may also be appreciated when the victim, although warned of the danger to his life, is defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace.[29]
	GR No. 176527 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. SAMSON VILLASAN Y BANATI BRION, J.
Evident premeditation, like other qualifying circumstances, must be established by clear and positive evidence showing that planning and preparation took place prior to the killing. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the time the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to this determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the resolve to kill and its execution that would have allowed the killer to reflect on the consequences of his act.[54] Significantly, the prosecution did not even attempt to prove the presence of these elements. In People v. Sison,[55] we held that evident premeditation should not be appreciated where there is neither evidence of planning or preparation to kill nor of the time when the plot was conceived.
	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. 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.
	GR No. 154557 2008-02-13	PEOPLE v. The CA VELASCO JR., J.
SO ORDERED.[8] Private respondents seasonably interposed their appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 17275. They argued that private respondent Rickson was subjected to an illegal search and seizure of the round posts and firewood which cannot be used as evidence against him. They insisted that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) personnel together with some Philippine National Police personnel who stopped private respondent Rickson did not have a search warrant. They also opined that the "plain sight" or "open review" doctrine is inapplicable as the posts and firewood are not incriminatory, more so as firewood is available and sold in public markets without the requirement of any permit from the DENR.