Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEVERINO DAVID v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Furthermore, Danny's actuation in not reporting the incident immediately to the authorities cannot take out his case within the ambit of the Court's jurisprudential doctrine that the flight of an accused discloses a guilty conscience. The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of appellant's flight from the scene of the crime coupled with his failure to promptly inform the authorities about the incident. [27]
	GR No. 189328 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD PELIS BRION, J.
We find no reason to disturb the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Mario Makahilig is more plausible than the appellant's alibi. Positive identification, where categorical, consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial,[11] particularly where the appellant had not shown the physical impossibility of his access to the victim at the time and place of the crime.[12] The RTC correctly appreciated conspiracy since the simultaneous acts of the accused during the stabbing disclosed a unity of objective.[13] Treachery qualified the killing to murder. Although frontal, the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was in no position to repel the attack.[14] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
	GR No. 189093 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS Y GARCIA VELASCO JR., J.
Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[135]
	GR No. 188105 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS VELASCO JR., J.
Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[28] Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[29]