Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FELIPE DEMATE Y LOGANA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 199522 2015-06-22	RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
As for Criminal Case No. 1701, no mitigating and only one (1) aggravating circumstance attends the crime. Although it was stated during trial that the offense was committed in the presence of AAA's children, such fact was not alleged in the information and therefore will not be taken into consideration.[52] Nighttime, though alleged, is not considered aggravating because it neither facilitated the commission of the offense nor was it shown to have been purposely sought by the offender.[53] The fact of AAA's pregnancy during the crime's commission, however, has been alleged and established. This single circumstance aggravates the accused's liability and automatically raises his penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, per Section 6 of RA 9262 and also Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, petitioner Dinamling should be sentenced to a maximum penalty that is derived from prision mayor in its maximum period, which is imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[54] the minimum penalty should come from the penalty one degree lower than prision mayor which is prision correccional, whose range is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.[55] Therefore, this Court modifies the trial court's Order dated September 17, 2009,[56] which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and imposes on petitioner Dinamling an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eleven (11) years of prision mayor as maximum. The trial court's order for petitioner to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is upheld.
	GR No. 180915 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE NAZARENO Y MELANIOS PEREZ, J.
Finally, temperate damages are awarded when it appears that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty.[39] While Beverly de Guzman, the brother of the victim, testified that he spent P50,000.00 as funeral expenses and P5,000.00 as hospital expenses he, however failed to present duly issued receipts therefore. Hence, he cannot recover actual damages as these require that the amount claimed be supported by receipts.[40] Thus, the award of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is likewise proper.
	GR No. 178233 2008-12-04	JOSEPH A. GANDOL v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In imposing upon Joseph and Eduardo their respective penalties, the RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstance of relationship. The Information in these cases, however, did not specifically allege the aggravating circumstance of relationship. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which should be given retroactive effect following the rule that statutes governing court proceedings shall be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, every Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances.[40] Hence, since the aggravating circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the Information, it could not be appreciated against them.
	GR NO. 171272 2007-06-07	PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ Y ECHECHE QUISUMBING, J.
To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to such determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his act.[53]
	GR NO. 171087 2006-07-12	PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The killing was attended with treachery. 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.[18] What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.[19]
	GR No. 145504 2004-06-30	PEOPLE v. LARRY CAGAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
In addition to the civil indemnity and damages awarded by the trial court, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be awarded, given the presence of treachery which qualified the killing to murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code which allows the award of exemplary damages as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, the term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed in its generic sense since it did not specify otherwise.[33]