Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GARIO ALBA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR NO. 168818 2007-03-09	NILO SABANG v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
These circumstances led the trial court to conclude that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Butad which could have precipitated petitioner's actions. This finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is conclusive on the Court barring any showing of any arbitrariness or oversight of material facts that could change the result.[29]
	GR Nos. 148063-64 2004-06-17	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO IBARRIENTOS Y PERICO QUISUMBING, J.
As to the second issue, the appellant asserts that the ages and relationships of the victims were stated in the informations but were not alleged with specificity as qualifying circumstances. He invokes Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[78] and People v. Alba[79] and People v. Manlansing,[80] to support his stance that the two circumstances cannot be treated as qualifying circumstances but merely generic aggravating circumstances. The appellant submits that assuming he is found to be the perpetrator of the felonies, he should be found guilty of two counts of simple rape, not qualified rape.[81]
	GR No. 149039 and GR No. 149362 2004-05-27	CATALINA SECURITY AGENCY v. ALICIA B. GONZALEZ-DECANO PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC QUISUMBING, J.
However, counsel for appellant submits that even granting arguendo that he is guilty of a crime, the crime he committed was only homicide and not murder. He calls attention to People v. Alba,[32] and the more recent case of People v. Manlansing,[33] which opined that:…the information should state not only the designation of the offense and the acts and omissions constituting it but shall also specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Guided by the established rule that when a penal statute, whether substantive or remedial and procedural, is favorable to the accused, the courts shall give it a retroactive application. Thus, we held that since the information in this case failed to specify treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, under the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, treachery has to be considered a generic aggravating circumstance only.
	GR No. 147667 2004-01-21	PEOPLE v. RESTY TIGLE CARPIO, J.
In his reply brief, appellant cited People v. Alba[18] and People v. Manlansing[19] as bases for the non-imposition of the death penalty. According to appellant, although the Information alleged treachery and evident premeditation, the Information did not state these circumstances with specificity as qualifying the crime to murder. Appellant quoted from People v. Alba the following:We note however, that treachery, though stated in the information, was not alleged with specificity as qualifying the killing to murder. Sections 8 and 9 [of Rule 110] of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000, provide:
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant next argues that if he were to be held criminally liable, it should only be for homicide. According to him, treachery was not alleged in the Information with specificity as to qualify the killing to murder. He cites as bases for his argument the cases of People v. Alba[19] and People v. Manlansing,[20] wherein the Court disregarded the qualifying circumstance of treachery for the reason that it failed to specify treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder. In said cases, treachery was considered only a generic aggravating circumstance; thus, the crime committed was only homicide and not murder.
	GR No. 150030 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO MUÑEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
There is no doubt therefore that he sustained the injuries found by Dr. Romulo Robles. Hacking a person with a bolo would have caused more serious injuries than that found by Dr. Romulo Robles. Assessing the medical findings of Dr. Romulo Robles, it can be safely said that the injuries on the person of Ernesto Muñez were minor injuries which were inflicted more than a week before he was examined by Dr. Romulo Robles. Such physical evidence does not support Ernesto Muñez' declarations. The defense therefore was unable to prove its self-defense posture.[14] Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery to qualify the killing to murder considering that the information did not specifically allege this as a qualifying circumstance. Thus, he argues that the same should only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance, as held in People v. Alba[15] and People v. Manlansing.[16] These cases, however, have already been abandoned and superseded in the case of People v. Aquino,[17] where we held that qualifying circumstances need not be expressly stated as such to qualify the offense. It is enough that the same is stated in the information, whether it be as qualifying or generic aggravating.
	GR No. 147615 2003-01-20	VIRGILIO SANTOS v. PEOPLE PUNO, J.
According to the foregoing provisions, any circumstance that would qualify or aggravate the crime charged must be specified in the information. Following the established rule that a penal statute, whether substantive or procedural, shall be given a retroactive effect if favorable to the accused,[33] we hold that the aforequoted provisions are applicable to this case, and accordingly, rule that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated.
	GR Nos. 144907-09 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ BELLOSILLO, J.
of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[8] We delete however the award of actual damages to Lilian Trabel as no competent proof was presented in support thereof.[9] WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED. According, accused Manuel Gutierrez is found guilty instead of two (2) counts of homicide for the death of Lorelie dela Cruz and Rializa Trabel and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8)