People Vs Ursa

ARTICLE 14 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
People vs Gano, G..R. No. 134373, Feb. 28, 2001

No law provides that the excess rape or homicide should be aggravating
circumstance.
People vs Feran, Oct. 1992
Conspiracy is neither aggravating nor qualifying but is a manner of incurring
collective criminal liability among every co-conspirators in an equal degree such
that the act of one becomes the act of all.
Rodrigues 19 Phil 150, Siojo 61 Phil. 307
Public authority covers not only persons in authority but also agents of persons in
authority
and other public officers.
People vs Ursal, 121 SCRA 409
The circumstance of sex is not sustained solely by the fact that the victim was a
woman. It must
further appear that in the lawful taking of her life, there was some specific insult or
disrespect
shown to her womanhood.
People vs Dacibar, G.R. No. 111286, Feb 2000
It is not necessary that the accused enters the dwelling of the victim to commit the
offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although
the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from outside the
house.
People vs Ong, Jan. 30 , 1975
Nighttime is absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means to insure
execution of crime.
People vs Manansala, G.R. No. 88752, July 3, 1992
Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In such an offense,
the permediattion must relate to the killing and not to the robbery.
People vs Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318, April 13, 1999
The essence of treachery and the unexpectedness of the attack upon the
unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest provocation.
People vs Alacar, G.R. Nos. 64725-26, July 20,1992

When it is shown that the attack was not made with alevosia the number of the
assailants and simultaneity of the attack upon a defenseless person may constitute
abuse of force.
People vs Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996
Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger to
his persons, for what
is decisive is that the execution of the attack was made it impossible for the victim
to defend
himself or retaliate.
People vs Costelo, G.R. No. 134311, Oct. 13, 1999
The retaliation relevant in the appreciation of treachery must come from the victim,
not from anyone else.
People vs Binondo, G.R. No. 97227, Oct. 20, 1992
No greater outrage, insult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to
severe its head.
ARTICLE 17 PRINCIPALS
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy

The voluntary and indispensable cooperation of the offender is a concurrence
of the criminal act to be executed. Consequently, he is a co-conspirator by
indispensable cooperation, although the common design or purpose was never
bottled up by previous undertaking
People vs Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, Nov. 28, 1996
Where the words uttered did not make any great dominance or influences on the
offenders were already determined to commit the offending acts, the utterance will
not make the utterer an inducer.
Sotto G.R. No. 106083-84, March 29, 1996
The participation of the cooperator must be indispensible to the commission of the
crime. If his participation is dispensable, that is, with or without his participation,
the offense will be committed, the liability is that of an accomplice.
People vs Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, Oct. 26, 1999
Mere presence at the crime scene or sole relationship with the other accused does
not make one
a co-conspirator.
ARTICLE 18 ACCOMPLICES
People vs De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, Aug. 18, 1999

A lookout who was not part of the conspiracy but participated only after such
decision was reached incurs criminal liability as an accomplice.
People vs Lacao, SR.
Conspiracy is not a requirement as the accomplice is not a principal, but supplies
material or
moral aid to the principal in an efficacious way.
ARTICLE 21-22
Nullum crimen nulla poene sine lege

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission. Unless there is a law penalizing an act or omission, the offender cannot
be penalized, no matter how reprehensible the act may be.
Prospectivity Rule mandates that penal laws shall have only prospective
application.
ARTICLE 81-85
People vs Ballabare, G.R. No. 108871, Nov. 19, 1996

An affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accuseds
defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal.
Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans vs OMB, G.R.No. 135482,
Aug. 14, 2001
The prescription shall be interrupted or suspended when the proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the proceedings
are dismissed for reasons
not constituting jeopardy.
ARTICLE 95 CONDITIONAL PARDON
Tesoro vs Dir. Of Prisons, 68 Phil 154

The pardonee, having consented to place his liberty on conditional pardon upon
the judgment of the power that has granted it, cannot invoke the aid of the courts,
however erroneous the findings may be upon which his recommitment was ordered.
Torres
A final judicial pronouncement as to the guilt of a pardonee is not a requirement for
the President to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the terms of
conditional pardon.
ARTICLE 100-113
People vs Teehankee, Jr. G.R.Nos.111206-08, Oct. 6, 1995

The indemnities for loss of earning capacity and for moral damages are recoverable
separately from and in addition to the fixed sum corresponding to the indemnities
from the sole death.
People vs Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998
Indictments for rape continue unabated and the legislative response has been in
the form of
higher penalties.
People vs Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, Aug. 25, 1988
The civil indemnity which, by reason of the added repugnance of the bestial act
being committed on a pregnant woman in the presence of her husband, is
increased for each rape committed.
People vs Carpo, G.R. No. 132676, April 4, 2001
Without a special power of attorney, the counsel for the accused cannot bind nor
compromise
his clients civil liability.
People vs Luchico, 49 Phil. 689; People vs Namayan, G.R. No. 106539, July
18, 1995
Rape carries with it, among others, the obligations to acknowledge the offspring if
the character of its origin does not prevent it and to support the same.
Fernando vs Ocampo, 37 SCRA 311
The employers liability for the criminal negligence of his employee is subsidiary in
nature
and is limited only to civil indemnity.

People Vs Ursa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ursa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ursa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 14 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

People vs Gano, G..R. No. 134373, Feb. 28, 2001

People vs Alacar, G.R. Nos. 64725-26, July 20,1992

Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy

People vs De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, Aug. 18, 1999

Nullum crimen nulla poene sine lege

People vs Ballabare, G.R. No. 108871, Nov. 19, 1996

ARTICLE 95 CONDITIONAL PARDON

Tesoro vs Dir. Of Prisons, 68 Phil 154

People vs Teehankee, Jr. G.R.Nos.111206-08, Oct. 6, 1995

You might also like