Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOEL BRAGAT Y ABAQUITA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 195424 2015-06-15	PEOPLE v. RUDY NUYOK BERSAMIN, J.
Although the minority under 18 years of AAA at the time of the rapes, and the fact that the accused was her paternal uncle were established during the trial, the RTC nonetheless correctly convicted him only of four counts of simple rape instead of qualified rape because the special qualifying circumstance of minority was not alleged in the informations. The circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape,[35] but only her relationship to the accused was alleged and proved. The trial court was precluded from considering the attendance of such qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the judgment because of the failure to properly allege them.[36] This conforms to Section 8 and Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the stature, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling[38] was also attendant in the present case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor.[39] In this case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victims without provocation on their part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house.[40] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[41] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[42]
	GR No. 144383 2004-01-16	PEOPLE v. RESTY HORMINA QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's claim that Maritess did not actually see who fired the shots is a negative assertion. It is outweighed by the positive and candid declaration of the witness under oath. According to her, the first shot came from behind the trisikad. Upon hearing it, as a natural reaction to a stimulus, Maritess immediately turned her head to where the sound came from. She saw appellant Hormina holding a handgun, an arm's length away from the victim. She also categorically testified that she saw appellant chase the victim and then shoot him to death. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether or not such is in conformity with human knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.[40] We find it more in accord with human experience that the chasing and the second shooting were mere continuation of the first attack in order to accomplish the assassin's determination to kill. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the eyewitness' assertion as to the identity of the assailant is not tainted with bias, said assertion as to the identity of the malefactor can very well be accepted.[41]
	GR No. 142773 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM CALLEJO, SR., J.
To exculpate themselves, Marlon, Ronald and Leon interposed denial and alibi.[10]
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
testimony[27] and the Autopsy Report.[28] A detailed testimony acquires greater weight and credibility when confirmed by autopsy findings.[29] In addition, the usually stressful condition of the witnesses can serve as a catalyst for their recollections.[30] Third, there is no evidence to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motive and, thus, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[31]
	GR No. 138365 2002-04-16	PEOPLE v. SAMSON BARTOLOME Y ESPIRITU VITUG, J.
In order that the defense of alibi might, in any case, possibly prosper, it would not suffice that an accused could prove his being away from, but should likewise show that it would have been physically impossible for him to be at, the locus criminis at the time of its occurrence.[7] Here, the accused himself admitted that the house of his aunt and cousin, neither of whom was presented at the witness stand to corroborate the alibi, was only a kilometer away from where he and the complainant were staying.