Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGAR LEGASPI Y LIBAO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 191197 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO LAPORE PEREZ, J.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that for qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the complaint or information.[19] This is in line with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[20] Even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of the circumstances, the Court cannot appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the Information. Hence, although the prosecution has duly established the presence of the aforesaid circumstances, which, however, were not alleged in the Information, this Court cannot appreciate the same. Notably, these circumstances are not among those which qualify a crime from simple rape to qualified rape as defined under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Thus even if duly alleged and proven, the crime would still be simple rape.
	GR No. 177138 2010-01-26	PEOPLE v. JOEL GUILLERMO CORONA, J.
Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the offense.[19] While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial.[20] This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages.[21]
	GRNo. 181625 2009-10-02	JEROME FLORES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It must also be remembered that the entry in the police blotter was made at 6:30 on the morning of February 12, 1997, only a few hours after the rape and robbery. At that time, Honorata may not have yet fully recovered from the traumatic ordeal she had gone through, resulting in an inaccurate entry in the police blotter. Besides, minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall (People vs. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 [1998]).[15] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 170636 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. SONNY MAYAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus, this Court observed in People v. Legaspi:[33]
	GR Nos. 150542-87 2004-02-03	PEOPLE v. OLIVER AREVALO JR. Y ABANILLA PANGANIBAN, J.
The law presumes everyone to be sane.[50] The accused who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity incurs the burden of proving it.[51] To be adjudged insane under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, he or she must have been completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time the crime was committed.[52] For such deprivation to be ascertained, it is but proper to receive evidence during a reasonable period before or after the commission of the crime, for the mind its thoughts, motives and emotions may be fathomed only by examining whether the external acts conform with those of people of sound minds.[53]
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
which aggravating circumstances would increase the penalty to death.[74] The Information in the present case did not allege the presence of treachery. Hence, this circumstance cannot be appreciated in determining the crime committed and the penalty to be imposed.
	GR No. 129688 2002-04-02	PEOPLE v. MAMERTO OBOSA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Regarding the other aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, the same cannot be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances. The information does not allege the presence of such circumstances. They were only established during the trial. A recent amendment to the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[30] mandates that "the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances."[31] Thus, qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial.[32] This principle is applicable in all criminal cases, not only in cases were the aggravating circumstance would increase the penalty to death.[33] Guided by the rule of applying retroactively a penal statute, substantive and remedial or procedural, that is favorable to the accused, we hold that the circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness should not be appreciated against the appellant considering that these aggravating circumstances are not alleged in the information.
	GR No. 133438 2002-01-16	PEOPLE v. WILSON LAB-EO CARPIO, J.
The New Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, re-enacted verbatim Section 6, Rule 110 of the old Rules on sufficiency of the Information. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110[17] of the new Rules, moreover, now require that both the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information to be appreciated as such. Under the old Rules, only the qualifying circumstances were required to be alleged in the Information, and aggravating circumstances, even if not alleged, could still be appreciated, except in cases where an aggravating circumstance would result in the imposition of the death penalty.[18] In any event, even if Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the new Rules, which are more favorable to the accused, are applied to this case, the Information for murder against the appellant would still remain sufficient and valid. Three of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code raising a killing to murder are specifically alleged in the Information in this case, satisfying Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the new Rules.