Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. EFREN MATEO Y GARCIA

This case has been cited 399 times or more.

2015-04-08
PERALTA, J.
Due to the nature of the judgment, petitioner filed her appeal with this Court. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[10] the appeal was transmitted to the CA for intermediate review. The CA then affirmed the decision of the RTC, with modification that she indemnify the Obando Fisherman's Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. in the amount of Php2,080,000.00.  The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
2014-06-30
REYES, J.
On October 4, 2004, Rondina filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, but conformably to this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[15] the Court transferred the case to the CA for intermediate review. At the CA, Rondina raised a lone error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING [RONDINA] OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[16]
2014-06-09
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner seasonably appealed his conviction before this Court.  Pursuant, however, to the Court's pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[16] the case was ordered transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition through a Resolution[17] dated March 22, 2006.
2014-02-19
PEREZ, J.
The appellant appealed the trial court's Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal.[27] However, pursuant to this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[28] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
2013-12-11
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Sabangan and Bornasal directly appealed the RTC judgment to this Court,[33] but in a Resolution[34] dated August 8, 2005, the Court, in accordance with its ruling in People v. Mateo,[35] referred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
2013-09-18
REYES, J.
The case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo[12], the case was transferred to the CA in a Resolution dated March 27, 2006.[13]
2013-09-02
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[12] with this Court. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] the case was remanded to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[14]
2013-07-03
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellants filed their notice of appeal on February 5, 2002 to the Supreme Court.[14]  The appeal was accepted by this Court in its Resolution[15] dated September 4, 2002 but was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Mateo.[16]
2013-07-01
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal,[20] which the RTC approved in its Order[21] of April 10, 2003.  Pursuant thereto, the records of the case were elevated to this Court.  However, in view of our ruling in People v. Mateo[22] this case was remanded to the CA for intermediate review.
2013-06-26
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
(3) For failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused Delio Famor beyond reasonable doubt, the said accused is ACQUITTED of the charge of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. Being a detention prisoner, the said accused is hereby ordered released from confinement unless he is being detained on some other charge or charges or that there is an order from other court to the contrary, without pronouncement as to costs.[7] In view of the death penalty handed down by the trial court, appellant's case was automatically elevated to this Court for re-examination; however, in conformity with the rule we laid down in People v. Mateo,[8] the matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
2013-04-17
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People v. Mateo,[7] the Court of Appeals conducted an intermediate review of the decision of the trial court.  On August 29, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming with modification the findings of the trial court:
2013-04-03
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The entire records of the cases were brought before us, but we transferred the same to the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[11] dated August 24, 2004, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[12]
2013-01-09
DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the Court's Resolution[18] dated November 9, 2005, the case was transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition in view of the ruling in People v. Mateo[19] allowing an intermediate review by the said court of cases where the penalty imposed is death, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, as in this case.
2013-01-08
BERSAMIN, J.
Elevated to the Court on automatic appeal, the records were transferred to the CA for intermediate review pursuant to People v. Mateo.[31]
2012-12-10
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellants appealed their conviction by the RTC directly before this Court,[30] but conformably with its ruling in People v. Mateo,[31] the Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
2012-11-28
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
When the record of the case was forwarded to us for review, we remanded the same to the Court of Appeals, conformably with our decision in People v. Mateo.[15]
2012-11-12
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant seasonably appealed to this Court.  However, pursuant to the Court's pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[17] the case was transferred to the CA for intermediate review.
2012-10-16
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that these cases were elevated to Us on automatic review in view of the RTC's imposition of the death penalty upon appellant in its June 25, 1997 Decision. However, with the Court's pronouncement in the 2004 case of People v. Mateo[12]providing for and making mandatory the intermediate review by the CA of cases involving the death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the proper course of action would be to remand these cases to the appellate court for the conduct of an intermediate review.
2012-09-15
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In its September 8, 2004 Resolution,[16] this Court noted the July 12, 2004 letter and transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition in line with its ruling in People v. Mateo.[17]
2012-08-23
DEL CASTILLO, J.
On October 20, 2000, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal,[13] which was granted by the RTC.[14] Consequently, the records of this case were forwarded to this Court. Conformably with the ruling of this Court in People v. Mateo,[15] however, the case was transferred to the CA for intermediate appellate review. Then on November 13, 2006, the CA rendered its now assailed Decision[16] affirming with modification the RTC's judgment of conviction, thus:
2012-07-30
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Since appellant Camat was sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH as a consequence of his conviction for two charges of Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm, among others, the case was originally appealed to this Court but in conformity with our decision in People v. Mateo,[17] the matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
2012-06-20
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Aggrieved, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[11]  The entire records of the case were elevated to this Court.  Pursuant to our Decision in People v. Mateo,[12] however, the case was transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
2012-06-13
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Order[26] of June 28, 2000. After the elevation of the records of the case, this Court accepted the appeal on February 21, 2001.[27] Conformably, however, with the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[28] the case was subsequently transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[29]
2012-04-18
PEREZ, J.
Aggrieved, appellant appealed the aforesaid RTC Decision to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated 6 September 2000.[7] In light, however, of this Court's pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[8] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review per Resolution[9] dated 4 October 2004.
2012-04-11
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant assailed the foregoing RTC judgment directly before us.  However, pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[24] we referred accused-appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[25]
2012-04-11
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Alleging that the foregoing decision was contrary to law and unsupported by the evidentiary records, accused-appellant  sought a review of the same with this Court through a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC gave due course.  However, in accordance with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
2012-03-20
PERALTA, J.
The case was then brought to this Court for automatic review in view of the penalty of death imposed on accused-appellants. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[17] and the amendments made to Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, and Section 3 of  Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Court transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
2012-02-22
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In our Resolution[19] dated September 27, 2005, we referred the present case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo.[20]
2012-02-15
DEL CASTILLO, J.
The case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review, but same was later referred to the CA in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[31]
2012-02-01
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The foregoing RTC Judgment was directly elevated to us for our review, but in accordance with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] we issued a Resolution[14] dated December 1, 2004 referring the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
2012-01-25
DEL CASTILLO, J.
In view of the Notice of Appeal[10] filed by the appellants, the RTC forwarded the records of the case to this Court.  By Resolution[11] dated January 31, 2000, the Court resolved to accept the appeal.  In view thereof, appellants were required to file their brief.[12] Appellants thus filed their brief on November 20, 2000[13] while the OSG submitted the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee[14] on May 2, 2001.  Later, however, consonant with this Court's pronouncement in People v. Mateo[15] the case was transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[16]
2011-12-14
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal, [10] which was approved by the trial court in its Order [11] of August 17, 2001. Pursuant thereto, the records of the case were elevated to this Court. However, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo [12] allowing an intermediate review by the CA where the penalty involved is death, reclusion perpetua as in this case, or life imprisonment, the case was transferred to said court for appropriate action and disposition. [13]
2011-12-14
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The cases were elevated to the Court on automatic review and were docketed as G.R. Nos. 165201-08.[27]  The parties then filed their respective briefs.[28]  On February 7, 2006, we resolved[29] to transfer the cases to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[30]  The cases were docketed in the appellate court as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00560.
2011-11-28
DEL CASTILLO, J.
On August 3, 2004, we resolved to accept the appeal of Edgar, Erlito and Dolores.[90]  On even date, we required both parties to file their respective briefs.[91]  However, conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[92] we resolved to refer the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for appropriate action and disposition.[93]
2011-11-23
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Aggrieved, Legaspi appealed[15] her case to this Court.  However, conformably with this Court's Decision in People v. Mateo,[16] which modified certain rules on direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, Legaspi's case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[17]
2011-11-14
PERALTA, J.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[29] On January 14, 2004, we accepted the appeal.[30] However, pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[31]  we  transferred  the case to the Court of Appeals.[32]
2011-10-19
BERSAMIN, J.
Caliso was arraigned and tried for rape with homicide, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte found him guilty of murder for the killing of AAA,[1] a mentally-retarded 16-year old girl, and sentenced him to death in its decision dated August 19, 2002.[2] The appeal of the conviction was brought automatically to the Court. On June 28, 2005,[3] the Court transferred the records to the Court of Appeals (CA) for intermediate review pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo.[4] On October 26, 2007,[5] the CA, although affirming the conviction, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua and modified the civil awards. Now, Caliso is before us in a final bid to overturn his conviction.
2011-10-19
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner filed his Brief[24] on April 6, 1998 while the brief[25] for the respondent People of the Philippines was filed on August 27, 1998 through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Per Resolution[26] dated August 30, 2004, this Court referred the appeal to the CA for proper disposition and determination pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[27]
2011-10-12
BRION, J.
On appeal, we endorsed this case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[15]  After careful deliberations, the CA, in its November 21, 2008 decision, affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, ordering the appellant to pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
2011-10-05
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant appealed his conviction to this Court. But conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[20]the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.