Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180177 2012-04-18	ROGELIO S. REYES v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In this jurisdiction, we convict the accused only when his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Conformably with this standard, we are mandated as an appellate court to sift the records and search for every error, though unassigned in the appeal, in order to ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every error that the lower court has committed in finding guilt against the accused.[32]
	GR No. 143010 2003-09-30	MIGUEL DANOFRATA Y BAUTISTA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Passion and obfuscation exist when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind, and (2) the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. There is passion and obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.[31] In this case it was established that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some of them for laughing at him. These events and circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo Gonzales could have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner's part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation.
	GR No. 139879 2003-05-08	PEOPLE v. GABRIEL ANNIBONG Y INGGAO QUISUMBING, J.
But we differ from the trial court's finding and conclusion with regard to the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank as well as respect due to the offended party. Although the victim was the immediate superior officer of the appellant, being his Detachment Commander at the time of the commission of the crime,[28] this fact was not alleged in the information. Hence, this circumstance cannot be appreciated to increase appellant's liability following Section 8 of Rule 110.[29]
	GR No. 144318 2002-04-03	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN ANACAN Y JALANDONI BELLOSILLO, J.
We cannot agree, however, with the conclusion of the trial court that the killing was qualified by treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the assailant, depriving his victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.[7] Just like the crime itself, the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 137610-11 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ PUNO, J.
The attack was undoubtedly treacherous. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.[26] Needless to say, the unsuspecting victims in the jeep driven by Lorenzo de Leon were taken by surprise and had no means to defend themselves. They were simply on their way to attend a hearing in another town in Pangasinan and had no inkling that such a gruesome attack would befall them at the break of dawn.