Lawyerly

GR No. 210616

2015-11-25

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We are not persuaded by accused-appellant's claim. The eyewitnesses' statements were correctly given credence by the lower courts. Indeed, the test of credibility is not based solely on proximity. The Court has affirmed convictions based on the testimony of witnesses who identified assailants from a distance of 31 feet[18] and even from a distance of 50 meters away, while witnesses were gathering coconuts, with tall and short shrubs between the witnesses and the place where the felony occurred.[19] It is settled that the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. The rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC.[20] We find no reason to rule otherwise in this case.

GR No. 215319

2015-10-21

PEOPLE v. APOLONIO BABOR

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

With respect to the presence of treachery in the killing of Bartolome, which is a qualifying circumstance necessary for a murder conviction, paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[14] In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[15]

GR No. 205228

2015-07-15

PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON

PEREZ, J.

Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[20] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[21]

GR No. 171284

2015-06-29

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG

BERSAMIN, J.

The accused who pleads self-defense admits the authorship of the crime. The burden of proving self-defense rests entirely on him, that he must then prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following elements of self-defense, namely: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[19] The most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression,[20] which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.

GR No. 202666

2014-09-29

RA AVE S. VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE

VELASCO JR., J.

In this regard, We cannot give much weight to the minors' testimonies for one key reason: failure to question the students' act of showing the photos to Tigol disproves their allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them. Without any evidence to corroborate their statement that the images were visible only to the five of them, and without their challenging Escudero's claim that the other students were able to view the photos, their statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.[42]

GR No. 208678

2014-06-16

PEOPLE v. JEFFERSON WARRINER Y NICDAO

REYES, J.

Clearly, Jefferson was correctly convicted of murder, qualified by treachery, given the presence of the following elements of the crime: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide.[22]

GR No. 183202

2014-06-02

ALBERTO ALMOJUELA Y VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[29] This mitigating circumstance is inapplicable in the present case because the unlawful aggression did not start from the victim Quejong but from Almojuela. The prosecution proved that it was Almojuela who first challenged Paz and his group to a fight. Almojuela came prepared to fight and was in fact armed with a bladed weapon.

GR No. 177763

2013-07-03

PEOPLE v. GARY VERGARA Y ORIEL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent accused-appellant Vergara's claim of self-defense, the following essential elements had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[29] A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[30]

GR No. 181354

2013-02-27

SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[30] "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[31] "Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense."[32]

GR No. 184601

2012-11-12

PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM Y MOLINA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We agree that the death of Wilson at the hands of appellant was not occasioned by self-defense. For this Court to consider self-defense as a justifying circumstance, appellant has to prove the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[23] The Court has repeatedly stated that a person who invokes self-defense has the burden to prove all the aforesaid elements. The Court also considers unlawful aggression on the part of the victim as the most important of these elements. Thus, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[24]

GR No. 182523

2012-09-15

PEOPLE v. EFREN LAURIO Y ROSALES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent his claim of self-defense, appellant had to prove the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[24] A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[25]

GR No. 195534

2012-06-13

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO GONZALES

BRION, J.

The existence of unlawful aggression is the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense.[10] In other words, no self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel.[11] In People v. Dolorido,[12] we held that unlawful aggression "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present 'only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life.'" The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury upon the accused.[13] In case of a "threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the x x x intent to cause injury."[14]

GR No. 183706

2012-04-25

PEOPLE v. SAMSON ESCLETO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We likewise affirm the finding of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the stabbing of Alfredo by Samson was qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[16] We have also held that: "[i]n order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[17]

GR No. 185212

2012-02-15

PEOPLE v. MARITESS ALOLOD

ABAD, J.

Consistent with recent jurisprudence the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,[5] P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[6] another P75,000.00 as moral damages,[7] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[8] for a total of P205,000.00 in each case. But these amounts should only apply to Efren and not to the rest of the accused who withdrew their appeals.[9] Here, the RTC ordered Maritess, Edwin and Elmer to pay only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case or a total of P100,000.00.

GR No. 181204

2011-11-28

PEOPLE v. EDGAR CONCILLADO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"[T]he most important among all the elements is x x x unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete."[114] "There can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel."[115] "Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person."[116]

GR No. 190317

2011-08-22

PEOPLE v. LARRY TORRES

VELASCO JR., J.

In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically. Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[21] When the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua, the damages to be imposed are: PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.[22] These amounts are proper since there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from January 19, 2000, which is the date of the killing, up to the finality of the judgment should be imposed on the damages.[23] In addition, interest at 12% per annum shall be imposed on said damages from finality of judgment until paid.

	GR No. 210616 2015-11-25	PEOPLE v. EDDIE SALIBAD Y DILO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We are not persuaded by accused-appellant's claim. The eyewitnesses' statements were correctly given credence by the lower courts. Indeed, the test of credibility is not based solely on proximity. The Court has affirmed convictions based on the testimony of witnesses who identified assailants from a distance of 31 feet[18] and even from a distance of 50 meters away, while witnesses were gathering coconuts, with tall and short shrubs between the witnesses and the place where the felony occurred.[19] It is settled that the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. The rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC.[20] We find no reason to rule otherwise in this case.
	GR No. 215319 2015-10-21	PEOPLE v. APOLONIO BABOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
With respect to the presence of treachery in the killing of Bartolome, which is a qualifying circumstance necessary for a murder conviction, paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[14] In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[15]
	GR No. 205228 2015-07-15	PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO Y SAMSON PEREZ, J.
Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.[20] The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[21]
	GR No. 171284 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG BERSAMIN, J.
The accused who pleads self-defense admits the authorship of the crime. The burden of proving self-defense rests entirely on him, that he must then prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following elements of self-defense, namely: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[19] The most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression,[20] which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.
	GR No. 202666 2014-09-29	RA AVE S. VIVARES v. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE VELASCO JR., J.
In this regard, We cannot give much weight to the minors' testimonies for one key reason: failure to question the students' act of showing the photos to Tigol disproves their allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them. Without any evidence to corroborate their statement that the images were visible only to the five of them, and without their challenging Escudero's claim that the other students were able to view the photos, their statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.[42]
	GR No. 208678 2014-06-16	PEOPLE v. JEFFERSON WARRINER Y NICDAO REYES, J.
Clearly, Jefferson was correctly convicted of murder, qualified by treachery, given the presence of the following elements of the crime: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide.[22]
	GR No. 183202 2014-06-02	ALBERTO ALMOJUELA Y VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[29] This mitigating circumstance is inapplicable in the present case because the unlawful aggression did not start from the victim Quejong but from Almojuela. The prosecution proved that it was Almojuela who first challenged Paz and his group to a fight. Almojuela came prepared to fight and was in fact armed with a bladed weapon.
	GR No. 177763 2013-07-03	PEOPLE v. GARY VERGARA Y ORIEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent accused-appellant Vergara's claim of self-defense, the following essential elements had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[29] A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[30]
	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[30] "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[31] "Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense."[32]
	GR No. 184601 2012-11-12	PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM Y MOLINA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We agree that the death of Wilson at the hands of appellant was not occasioned by self-defense. For this Court to consider self-defense as a justifying circumstance, appellant has to prove the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[23] The Court has repeatedly stated that a person who invokes self-defense has the burden to prove all the aforesaid elements. The Court also considers unlawful aggression on the part of the victim as the most important of these elements. Thus, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[24]
	GR No. 182523 2012-09-15	PEOPLE v. EFREN LAURIO Y ROSALES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent his claim of self-defense, appellant had to prove the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.[24] A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[25]
	GR No. 195534 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO GONZALES BRION, J.
The existence of unlawful aggression is the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense.[10] In other words, no self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel.[11] In People v. Dolorido,[12] we held that unlawful aggression "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present 'only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life.'" The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury upon the accused.[13] In case of a "threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the x x x intent to cause injury."[14]
	GR No. 183706 2012-04-25	PEOPLE v. SAMSON ESCLETO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We likewise affirm the finding of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the stabbing of Alfredo by Samson was qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[16] We have also held that: "[i]n order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself."[17]
	GR No. 185212 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. MARITESS ALOLOD ABAD, J.
Consistent with recent jurisprudence the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,[5] P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[6] another P75,000.00 as moral damages,[7] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[8] for a total of P205,000.00 in each case. But these amounts should only apply to Efren and not to the rest of the accused who withdrew their appeals.[9] Here, the RTC ordered Maritess, Edwin and Elmer to pay only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case or a total of P100,000.00.
	GR No. 181204 2011-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGAR CONCILLADO DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[T]he most important among all the elements is x x x unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete."[114] "There can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel."[115] "Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person."[116]
	GR No. 190317 2011-08-22	PEOPLE v. LARRY TORRES VELASCO JR., J.
In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically. Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[21] When the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua, the damages to be imposed are: PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.[22] These amounts are proper since there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from January 19, 2000, which is the date of the killing, up to the finality of the judgment should be imposed on the damages.[23] In addition, interest at 12% per annum shall be imposed on said damages from finality of judgment until paid.

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA