Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROBERT FIGUEROA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although the informations in Criminal Cases No. C-58617 and No. C-58693 both alleged that appellants conspired in raping AAA, it does not necessarily follow that the RTC cannot individually and separately convict appellants of rape. The rule is that once a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the other conspirators. It follows then that if the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be held individually responsible for their own respective acts.[61] In the instant cases, the RTC ruled that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between appellants in raping AAA. Nevertheless, on the basis of AAA's credible testimony and documentary evidence for the prosecution, the RTC found that appellant Aure alone raped AAA on 7 November 1999 and that appellant Ferol alone raped AAA on 8 November 1999. Thus, the RTC was correct in holding appellants individually responsible for their respective acts of rape.
	GR NO. 159734 2006-11-30	ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove at the trial that prior to in-custody questioning, the confessant was informed of his constitutional rights. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of proof that the arresting officers complied with these constitutional safeguards, extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made during custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of a case. In other words, confessions and admissions in violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution are inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and more so against third persons. This is so even if such statements are gospel truth and voluntarily given.[34] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 142295 2001-05-31	VICENTE DEL ROSARIO Y NICOLAS v. PEOPLE PARDO, J.
In upholding the prosecution and giving credence to the testimony of police officer Jerito A. Adigue, the trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.[41] This is a flagrant error because his testimony is directly contradictory to the official records of the Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which must prevail. Morever, the presumption of regularity can not prevail over the Constitutional presumption of innocence.[42] Right from the start, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito A. Adigue was aware that petitioner possessed a valid license for the caliber .45 Colt pistol in question. Despite this fact, P/Sr. Insp. Adigue proceeded to detain petitioner and charged him with illegal possession of firearms. We quote pertinent portions of the testimony of petitioner: "Q: What else did Adigue tell you after showing to him the license of your cal. .45 pistol and the alleged cal. .22 found in a drawer in your kitchen?