Lawyerly

GR No. 195534

2012-06-13

BRION, J.

We agree with the CA's findings. There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[22] The two elements that must be proven to establish treachery are: "(a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender."[23] The two elements are present in this case.

GR No. 177218

2011-10-03

PEOPLE v. NOEL T. SALES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

As to the third element, appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his child. While Noemar's birth certificate was not presented, oral evidence of filial relationship may be considered.[23] As earlier stated, appellant stipulated to the fact that he is the father of Noemar during the pre-trial conference and likewise made the same declaration while under oath.[24] Maria also testified that Noemar and Junior are her sons with appellant, her husband. These testimonies are sufficient to establish the relationship between appellant and Noemar.

GR No. 174473

2007-08-17

PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA

TINGA, J.

Appellant's argument is not well-taken. It is the judge's prerogative to ask clarificatory queries to ferret out the truth.[53] It cannot be taken against him if the questions he propounds reveal certain truths which, in turn, tend to destroy the theory of one party.[54] After all, the judge is the arbiter and ought to be satisfied himself as to the respective merits and claims of both parties in accord with the stringent demands of due process.[55] Also, being the arbiter, he may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite proceedings and prevent unnecessary waste of time.[56]

GR NO. 176158

2007-03-27

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[15]

GR NO. 174194

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[43]

GR NO. 171271

2006-08-31

PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present. Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[11] Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.[12]

GR No. 133436

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. CONRADO AYUMAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In his desperate attempt to exculpate himself from any criminal liability, appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove that he is the father of the victim. While the prosecution failed to present to the trial court the victim's Certificate of Live Birth, however, both appellant and his wife Ermita admitted during the hearing that the victim is their son. In People vs. Malabago,[19] we ruled that oral evidence of the fact of filial relationship maybe considered.[20]

GR Nos. 138874-75

2004-02-03

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRA×AGA

PER CURIAM

A trial judge is not a wallflower during trial. It is proper for him to caution and admonish witnesses when necessary and he may rebuke a witness for levity or for other improper conduct.[102] This is because he is called upon to ascertain the truth of the controversy before him.[103]

GR No. 136845

2003-10-08

PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO

BELLOSILLO, J.

As to the marriage of the victim and appellant, the trial court properly upheld its legitimacy. In parricide, the best proof of relationship between appellant and the deceased is the marriage certificate, and in the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered. The testimony of appellant that he was married to the deceased is an admission against his penal interest. It is a confirmation of the sem per praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that "a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."[23] Even if the marriage certificate was not presented, that the victim was the legitimate wife of appellant is evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In open court, appellant himself volunteered the information in his offer of evidence through counsel and on direct examination that the victim was his legitimate wife.

GR No. 128089

2001-02-13

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR VELASCO

VITUG, J.

There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance shown, the lower of the two indivisible penalties was correctly imposed by the trial court. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded to the heirs of the victim was likewise proper.[15]

	GR No. 195534 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO GONZALES BRION, J.
We agree with the CA's findings. There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[22] The two elements that must be proven to establish treachery are: "(a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender."[23] The two elements are present in this case.
	GR No. 177218 2011-10-03	PEOPLE v. NOEL T. SALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
As to the third element, appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his child. While Noemar's birth certificate was not presented, oral evidence of filial relationship may be considered.[23] As earlier stated, appellant stipulated to the fact that he is the father of Noemar during the pre-trial conference and likewise made the same declaration while under oath.[24] Maria also testified that Noemar and Junior are her sons with appellant, her husband. These testimonies are sufficient to establish the relationship between appellant and Noemar.
	GR No. 174473 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. ALVIN ABULON Y SALVANIA TINGA, J.
Appellant's argument is not well-taken. It is the judge's prerogative to ask clarificatory queries to ferret out the truth.[53] It cannot be taken against him if the questions he propounds reveal certain truths which, in turn, tend to destroy the theory of one party.[54] After all, the judge is the arbiter and ought to be satisfied himself as to the respective merits and claims of both parties in accord with the stringent demands of due process.[55] Also, being the arbiter, he may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite proceedings and prevent unnecessary waste of time.[56]
	GR NO. 176158 2007-03-27	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[15]
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[43]
	GR NO. 171271 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present. Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.[11] Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.[12]
	GR No. 133436 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. CONRADO AYUMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In his desperate attempt to exculpate himself from any criminal liability, appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove that he is the father of the victim. While the prosecution failed to present to the trial court the victim's Certificate of Live Birth, however, both appellant and his wife Ermita admitted during the hearing that the victim is their son. In People vs. Malabago,[19] we ruled that oral evidence of the fact of filial relationship maybe considered.[20]
	GR Nos. 138874-75 2004-02-03	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRA×AGA PER CURIAM
A trial judge is not a wallflower during trial. It is proper for him to caution and admonish witnesses when necessary and he may rebuke a witness for levity or for other improper conduct.[102] This is because he is called upon to ascertain the truth of the controversy before him.[103]
	GR No. 136845 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO BELLOSILLO, J.
As to the marriage of the victim and appellant, the trial court properly upheld its legitimacy. In parricide, the best proof of relationship between appellant and the deceased is the marriage certificate, and in the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered. The testimony of appellant that he was married to the deceased is an admission against his penal interest. It is a confirmation of the sem per praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that "a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage."[23] Even if the marriage certificate was not presented, that the victim was the legitimate wife of appellant is evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In open court, appellant himself volunteered the information in his offer of evidence through counsel and on direct examination that the victim was his legitimate wife.
	GR No. 128089 2001-02-13	PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR VELASCO VITUG, J.
There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance shown, the lower of the two indivisible penalties was correctly imposed by the trial court. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded to the heirs of the victim was likewise proper.[15]

PEOPLE v. PEDRO MALABAGO Y VILLAESPIN