Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SOLANGON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It should be noted that the death penalty was reintroduced in the dispensation of criminal justice by the Ramos Administration by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659[40] in December 1993. The said law has been questioned before this Court. There is, arguably, no punishment more cruel than that of death. Yet still, from the time the death penalty was re-imposed until its lifting in June 2006 by Republic Act No. 9346,[41] the Court did not impede the imposition of the death penalty on the ground that it is a "cruel punishment" within the purview of Section 19 (1),[42] Article III of the Constitution. Ultimately, it was through an act of Congress suspending the imposition of the death penalty that led to its non-imposition and not via the intervention of the Court.
	GR No. 187497 2011-10-12	PEOPLE v. MELANIO GALO BRION, J.
Preliminarily, we note that the lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution establishes the appellant's participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence[18] that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the imputed crime,[19] the latter should be convicted.
	GR No. 187497 2011-10-12	PEOPLE v. MELANIO GALO BRION, J.
In People v. Solangon,[24] we convicted accused Ricardo Solangon on the strength of circumstantial evidence. In Solangon, even though no direct evidence was presented to prove that the accused (alleged to have been members of the NPA) actually killed the victim, we still upheld the conviction.
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
As to appellant Al. In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the accused is individual and not collective. [77] Since appellant Al is liable only for the crime of serious illegal detention, he is jointly and severally liable only to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. For serious illegal detention, the award of civil indemnity is in the amount of P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. [78]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In Criminal Case No. 12309, for serious illegal detention, the trial court's award of P50,000 civil indemnity to AAA was proper, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[62]