Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DEDUYO Y PIRYO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
Lest it be overlooked, accused-appellant fled to Victorias City, Negros Occidental right after the incident, an act that is evidence of his guilt. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[19] Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion.[20]
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, the fact that accused-appellant fled and was only arrested five years later belies his claim of innocence. In People v. Deduyo, this Court said that flight by the accused clearly evinces "consciousness of guilt and a silent admission of culpability. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion."[45]
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
It should be noted that accused-appellant fled to Bicol when he learned that Yap-Obeles was arrested by the authorities.[61] In People v. Deduyo,[62] this Court said that flight by the accused clearly evinces "consciousness of guilt and a silent admission of culpability. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion."[63]
	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
It should be noted that accused-appellant fled to Bicol when he learned that Yap-Obeles was arrested by the authorities.[61] In People v. Deduyo,[62] this Court said that flight by the accused clearly evinces "consciousness of guilt and a silent admission of culpability. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as lion."[63]
	GR No. 168446 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO CRUZ PERALTA, J.
As to the contention of appellant Cruz that there was no force or intimidation involved in the taking, this Court held in the case of People v. Santos,[67] that the fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused did not remove the element of deprivation of liberty, because the victim went with the accused on a false inducement without which the victim would not have done so. In the present case, although Atty. Soriano boarded the vehicle without any protestation, he was under the impression that the said persons inside the same vehicle were to be trusted as he was assured by appellant Agustin about that matter. Without such assurance, the victim would not have boarded the said vehicle. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that, in kidnapping, the victim need not be taken by the accused forcibly or against his will. What is controlling is the act of the accused in detaining the victim against his or her will after the offender is able to take the victim in his custody. In short, the carrying away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention can either be made forcibly or fraudulently.[68]