G.R. No. L-26103 - People vs. Estrada

An order of execution is generally not appealable to ensure that cases reach a conclusion.
Exceptions to this rule include situations where the order alters the judgment's tenor or when the judgment's terms are ambiguous.
In this case, the order of execution did not change the judgment's tenor and the terms were clear, thus the appeal was not permissible.

The advance payment of interest was a key consideration for the creditor's agreement to defer the balance payment until December 15, 1965.
The dishonor of the check for advance interest led to the forfeiture of the payment period for the principal amount.
Acceptance of the check temporarily suspended the creditor's right to enforce payment, but it was not considered a true payment until the check was honored.
The dishonor of the check placed the appellant in automatic default.

The argument that the acceptance of the check novated the original compromise was rejected.
The check was intended to fulfill the compromise's terms, indicating no incompatibility that would suggest a novation.

The appellant's failure to provide sufficient funds for the check caused delays and harmed the appellee's credit.
The appellant had a duty to anticipate this outcome since the check was negotiable.
The subsequent provision of funds by the appellee did not rectify the damage caused by the dishonored check.
The trial court deemed the breach substantial, a conclusion that was not legally erroneous.

Elmer Estrada was convicted of murder for killing Alexander Almendras and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term.
The Court of Appeals found an error in the trial court's application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, suggesting reclusion perpetua instead.
The case was certified to the Supreme Court for review.

The murder occurred outside the Insular Cafe in Cebu City, where Almendras was shot multiple times.
Witnesses reported seeing Estrada and others involved in the shooting.
The police were alerted and pursued the suspects but initially returned without apprehending them.

A history of animosity existed between Estrada and Almendras, stemming from a prior stabbing incident.
Estrada had expressed intentions of revenge against Almendras, indicating premeditation.

Estrada's defense relied on an alibi, claiming he was not present at the scene during the shooting.
His alibi was contradicted by witness testimonies and the timeline of events.
The trial court found the alibi unconvincing, emphasizing the weakness of such defenses in criminal cases.

The trial court concluded that Estrada and his companions acted in concert to kill Almendras.
Evidence suggested a premeditated plan, as they arrived together and executed the attack.
The court ruled that conspiracy could be inferred from their coordinated actions, regardless of whether a formal agreement was established.

Eyewitnesses identified Estrada as being present during the shooting.
The trial court found the testimonies credible, rejecting Estrada's claims of innocence.
The principle of res gestae was...continue reading