Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BENITO BALLESTEROS Y GRAGASIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175195 2010-09-15	VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[29] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.[30]
	GR No. 173791 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA BRION, J.
Further, the CA erred in awarding actual damages in the amount of P23,268.00. In People v. Villanueva, we held that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.[117] We reiterated this ruling in the recent cases of People v. Casta[118] and People v. Ballesteros[119] where we awarded temperate damages,
	GR No. 170360 2009-03-12	PEOPLE v. HENRY GUERRERO Y AGRIPA BRION, J.
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. These actual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA. Despite the enhanced persuasive effect of the initial RTC factual ruling and the results of the CA's appellate factual review, we nevertheless fully scrutinized the records of this case as the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on the accused demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.[17]
	GR No. 175978 2009-02-12	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA BRION, J.
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings - including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual findings - are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. In our review of cases, these factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA. Despite this enhanced persuasive effect, we nevertheless fully scrutinize the records (as we did in this case), since the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the CA imposed on the appellant demands no less than this kind of careful and deliberate consideration.[34]
	GR No. 172871 2008-09-16	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE CASTA Y CAROLINO BRION, J.
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. These actual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA. Despite the enhanced persuasive effect of the initial RTC factual ruling and the results of the CA's appellate factual review, we nevertheless fully scrutinized the records of this case as the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the lower courts imposed on the accused demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.[34]