Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FRANCO DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181138 2012-12-03	RICKY “TOTSIE” MARQUEZ v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Also, Mallari's positive identification of petitioners as the perpetrators of the robbery and the absence of any ill-motive on his part to testify falsely against them prevail over petitioners' denial and alibi. As repeatedly held, alibi is the weakest defense since it can easily be fabricated and difficult to disprove.[67] Hence as a rule, the defenses of denial and alibi can only prosper if there is evidence that the accused were not only in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be within the immediate vicinity.[68] Here, while petitioners denied being at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be in the store at the time of the robbery. In fact, they testified that they were in a place only about 15 meters away from the scene of the crime.
	GR No. 175980 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Alibi is the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove."[48] For this defense to prosper, proof that the accused was in a different place at the time the crime was committed is insufficient. There must be evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be within the immediate vicinity of the crime during its commission.[49]
	GR No. 182918 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE BRION, J.
Nonetheless, we find that the CA misappreciated the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. [25]
	GR No. 189091 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ARMAN APACIBLE Y RODRIGUEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court increased the award of civil indemnity from P50,000 to P75,000 in light of recent jurisprudence,[14] and awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 to the heirs of the victim in view of the attending qualifying circumstance of treachery.
	GR No. 176527 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. SAMSON VILLASAN Y BANATI BRION, J.
The grant of civil indemnity as a consequence of the crime of murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant's responsibility therefor. While the RTC and the CA commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the murder victim's heirs, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[56] Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity to this extent, to be paid by the appellant to the victim's heirs.
	GR No. 174477 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RENATO BRACIA BRION, J.
The grant of civil indemnity for the crime of murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant's responsibility therefor. While the RTC and the CA commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the murder victim's heirs, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[93] Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity to this extent to be paid by the appellant to the victim's heirs.
	GR No. 184702 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER TALITA ABAD, J.
In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court with regard to Talita's culpability. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the penalty for murder in Criminal Case 98-727 from death to reclusion perpetua.[26] Accordingly, this Court affirms the modification of penalties in Criminal Cases 98-728 and 98-729 for frustrated murder and attempted murder, respectively. But, while the trial court and the Court of Appeals commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of Marilou Tolentino in Criminal Case 98-727, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P75,000.00.[27] All other monetary awards are sustained.
	GR No. 177753 2009-09-25	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN OCAMPO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Finally, the Court, following current jurisprudence,[36] increases the civil indemnity to P75,000.
	GR No. 173791 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA BRION, J.
Likewise, the CA correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary to the heirs of the victim consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[115] However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity shall be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.[116]