Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LUMINTIGAR Y DATILES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188975 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ALBERT TEÑOSO Y LOPEZ MENDOZA, J.
Upon re-examination of the records, the Court is of the considered view that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven. The elements of treachery are: 1) the employment of means, methods or forms of execution that affords the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and 2) that said means, method or forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted.[35]
	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
As to Bayacsan, he candidly admitted in court that he considered appellant his friend and he wanted to protect him and hence, he only disclosed appellant's admission to him when the police started questioning him. There is no rule that the suspect in a crime should immediately be named by a witness.[86] Different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of human behavior when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.[87] The Court understands the natural reluctance or aversion of some people to get involved in a criminal case.[88] More so where, as in these cases, a townmate of Bayanes and Bayacsan is involved. We have taken notice that when their townmates are involved in a criminal case, most people turn reticent.[89] Hence, the failure of Bayanes and Bayacsan to immediately volunteer information to the police investigators will not lessen the probative value of their respective testimonies. The delay, having been satisfactorily explained, has no effect on their credibility.[90]
	GR No. 131815 2002-08-14	PEOPLE v. VICTOR MENDEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A: I told Lareta (sic) to watch out because you are the one being sought for.[17] We have repeatedly ruled that where a killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated.[18] The previous fight would have placed the victim on guard for any reprisal by the
	GR Nos. 140901-02 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA Y DOLOROSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, Jan Ryan did not witness the onset of the attack as he was upstairs. He only testified that prior to hearing the three (3) gunshots, he heard his father Jose and accused-appellant exchanging invectives and apparently having a heated discussion.[12] Time and again, it has been ruled that there is no treachery where the attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated discussion.[13]