Temere Animus

G.R. No. 211053. November 29, 2017.* PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGFRED L. OROZCO, MANUEL D. OSIR, and ALBERTO B. MATURAN, accused,      ERNIE N. CASTRO, accused-appellant. Ponente :  LEONEN, J.: Doctrines:      To sustain a conviction under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, that the killing was not parricide or infanticide, and that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned under this Article. It is admitted that Mata was killed and that accused-appellant was one of those responsible for the stabs that led to his death. The only element disputed in this case is that the killing was attended by circumstances which qualify the crime as murder.      In People v. Dela Cruz, 612 SCRA 738 (2010), there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, m...

G.R. No. 200512. June 7, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER AVANCENA y CABANELA, JAIME POPIOCO y CAMBAYA and NOLASCO TAYTAY y CRUZ, accused-appellants. Ponente: J. Leonen; Doctrines: In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements:  [first,] the accused was a private person;  [second,] he [or she] kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty;  [third,] the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and  [fourth,] the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom. Accused-appellants claim that they were agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s Task Force Hunter but were unable to present any evidence to substantiate their claim. The prosecution, however, was able to present Police Inspector Nabor of the Human Resource Service of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, who testified that accused-appellants “[were] not in any manner connected with [Philippine Drug...

   G.R. No. 212683 JERSON E. TORTAL, vs. CHIZURU TANIGUCHI November 12, 2018 DOCTR INES: If indeed summons was not properly served on petitioner, then his remedy was to file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An action for the annulment of judgment is an equitable recourse that is independent of the case and is allowed only in exceptional cases, such as when there is no more available or other adequate remedy. If indeed summons was not properly served on petitioner, then his remedy was to file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An action for the annulment of judgment is an equitable recourse that is independent of the case and is allowed only in exceptional cases, such as when there is no more available or other adequate remedy. [De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 733-734 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. Under the doctrine of res ...