Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GERARDO LATUPAN Y SIBAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170863 2013-03-20	ENGR. ANT V. ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We reiterate the rule that it is necessary for the courts to employ the proper legal terminology in the imposition of penalties because of the substantial difference in their corresponding legal effects and accessory penalties. The appropriate name of the penalty must be specified as under the scheme of penalties in the RPC, the principal penalty for a felony has its own specific duration and corresponding accessory penalties.[21] Thus, the courts must employ the proper nomenclature specified in the RPC, such as "reclusion perpetua" not "life imprisonment," or "ten days of arresto menor" not "ten days of imprisonment." In qualified theft, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua based on Article 310 of the RPC which provides that "[t]he crime of [qualified] theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in [Article 309]."[22]
	GR No. 170974 2008-03-03	ROMEO I. SUERTE-FELIPE v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court ordered petitioner to pay actual damages of P21,800.00 and indemnity for death in the amount of P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed these awards and ordered petitioner to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. We sustain these awards of damages to the heirs of Godofredo Ariate. The amount of actual damages had been duly proven by receipts.[54] No proof is necessary for the award of civil indemnity for death other than the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the assailant.[55] The award of moral damages in cases of violent death is indeed fixed at P50,000.00 under current case law.[56]
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[29] Murder is the unlawful killing of any person when qualified by any of the circumstances listed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[30] Treachery or alevosia, which is alleged in the information, is one such qualifying circumstance.
	AM No. RTJ-02-1693 2002-08-21	OSCAR M. POSO v. JUDGE JOSE H. MIJARES PER CURIAM
guilty does not necessarily imply his wholesale admission of the presence of aggravating circumstances. This is especially true in the instant case where the plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide was preceded by a plea of not guilty to murder, thus indicating the intention of the accused to deny the existence of evident premeditation and treachery.[27] At any rate, as we have held in People v. Latupan,[28] qualifying and aggravating circumstances, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty to be imposed, must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged and cannot be considered as being integrated with the plea of guilty. Fourth. In his "Sentence," despite the correct initial assessment made by respondent Judge, he however egregiously credited the accused with three (3) mitigating circumstances, i.e., plea of guilty, voluntary surrender and intoxication, without receiving evidence to
	GR No. 142044 2001-11-23	PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The observation is well-taken. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty imposed must be proven with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense.[52]
	GR No. 137457 2001-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROSAURO SIA Y DICHOSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The observation is well-taken. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty imposed must be proven with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged as criminal offense.[33]