Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO NUGUID Y MAYAO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code [39] are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. [40]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code[34] are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[35]
	GR No. 174195 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MINGMING Y DISCALSO BRION, J.
In the present case, evidence confirms the use of deadly weapon (a knife) during the commission of the offense, this should be a qualifying circumstance that would raise the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua to death. We cannot, however, recognize this circumstance as qualifying. When the law or rules specify certain circumstances that can aggravate an offense, or circumstances that would attach to the offense a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such circumstances must be both alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the increased penalty.[71] When a circumstance is not so alleged, it cannot affect the penalty and the corresponding civil liabilities in line with our ruling in People v. Nuguid[72] and People v. Sagarino.[73]