Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178485 2009-09-04	PEOPLE v. MARIANO SAPIGAO QUISUMBING, J.
To put to rest the question of whether the .45 caliber handgun allegedly used by the appellant in shooting the victim on the head could produce an entrance wound with a ¾ or .75 centimeter diameter, we have held that the diameter of the entrance of gunshot wounds could be smaller or larger, depending on certain factors. The factors which could make the wound of entrance bigger than the caliber include: (1) shooting in contact or near fire; (2) deformity of the bullet which entered; (3) a bullet which might have entered the skin sidewise; and (4) an acute angular approach of the bullet. Where the wound of entrance is smaller than the firearm's caliber, the same may be attributed to the fragmentation of the bullet before entering the skin or to a contraction of the elastic tissues of the skin.[41] Thus, it is not impossible for a .45 caliber handgun to produce an entrance wound smaller than expected. The appellant's defense of denial therefore crumbles. In the face of the positive testimony of prosecution witness Fabro, as corroborated by the autopsy report, there is no doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Truly, what stands out from the evidence on record is the fact that to ensure the death of the victim, the appellant shot him on the head while the victim was already lying down.
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
The fact that the accused-appellants tested positive of gunpowder nitrates does not conclusively show that they fired the murder weapon, or a gun for that matter, for such forensic evidence should be taken only as an indication of possibility or even of probability, but not of infallibility, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder. (People v. Abellarosa, G.R. No. 121195, 27 November 1996; People v. de Guzman, 250 SCRA 118; People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283)[75] Thus, while a dying declaration may be admissible in evidence, it must identify with certainty the assailant. Otherwise, it loses its significance. Also, while a paraffin test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand, it cannot establish that the source of the nitrates was the discharge of firearms a person who tests positive may have handled one or more substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.[76] In People v. Melchor,[77] this Court acquitted the accused despite the presence of gunpowder nitrates on his hands
	GR No. 155023 2004-05-28	PEOPLE v. CORNELIO CAJUMOCAN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In People v. Abriol, et al.,[17] we reiterated the rule on the admissibility of this kind of evidence:A paraffin test could establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand. However, it cannot establish that the source of the nitrate was the discharge of firearms. Nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have handled one or more substances with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and leguminous plants. Hence, the presence of nitrates should only be taken as an indication of a possibility that a person has fired a gun. However, it must be borne in mind that appellants were not convicted on the sole basis of the paraffin test.
	GR No. 148877 2003-08-19	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT PER CURIAM
As alleged in the amended Information,[10] the killing was perpetrated with the use of an illegally possessed firearm. With the passage of RA 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is not a separate crime but merely a special aggravating circumstance.[11] After having been sufficiently proved by way of a certification[12] dated 25 August 2000[13] that the appellant was not a licensed gun holder, an aggravating circumstance shall be appreciated against him pursuant to the above-mentioned law, which provides in part that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance."
	GR No. 138266 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CABRERA QUISUMBING, J.
Concerning treachery, the prosecution has shown that there was that swift and unexpected attack of an unarmed victim, which is the essence of treachery.[38] The victim was defenseless and unarmed as he was then promenading with his pregnant girlfriend, clueless of the danger that lies ahead. Thus the twin requirements for the existence of treachery under Art. 14 (16) of the Revised Penal Code[39] had been adequately proven: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[40] Accordingly, the killing of Leopoldo Alvarado constitutes murder. Under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, the crime of murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. In the absence of any mitigating or generic aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period, or reclusion perpetua.[41]