Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JERRY VILLEGAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186233 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROMEO SATONERO VELASCO JR., J.
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety.[29] There must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[30] As the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, or at least not convincingly proved, accused-appellant's claim of self-defense cannot be appreciated.
	GR No. 152604 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, the trial court gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witnesses who testified in a positive and straightforward manner, when they identified appellant, and who were not found to have been ill-motivated. Furthermore, the said witnesses were all public officials who enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.[15] Where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motive, his positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.[16]
	GR No. 131915 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. EDDIE LACHICA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Conformably to recent jurisprudence, we sustain the amount of P50,000 for civil indemnity. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that when death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased a re entitled to be indemnified without need of any proof thereof.[40]
	GR No. 146696 2003-07-03	PEOPLE v. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion that the testimony was rehearsed.[17]
	GR No. 147764 2003-01-16	PEOPLE v. DANILO CUETO Y CUETO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, accused-appellant still has to rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.[10] Precisely because he has to rely on the strength of his evidence, accused-appellant's admission that he shot Eduardo would render immaterial his submission that the prosecution eyewitnesses were not at the scene of the incident when it happened.