Lawyerly

GR No. 205735

2015-02-04

CONCEPCION A. VILLENA v. BATANGAS II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Dissatisfied, Villena filed a petition for certiorari[35] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 120170.

GR No. 185162

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROLLY GIDOC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offender might make.[21] The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latter's part.[22]

GR No. 148859

2002-09-24

HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. CA

BELLOSILLO, J.

the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[20] Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was actuated by any improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony given is accorded full faith and credit. To sustain a conviction for theft, the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent; (2) the act of taking the personal property of another must be done without the use of violence against or

GR Nos. 127759-60

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

QUISUMBING, J.

In Criminal Case No. 2211-142, the lower court ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of the late P/Insp. Edgardo Miguel P78,000.00 as actual damages and P500,000.00 as moral damages. However, only a receipt of the Basilan Memorial Chapel for P20,000.00[55] was presented. Actual damages may only be awarded for expenses duly supported by receipts.[56] In this case then, actual damages should be only P20,000.00. Likewise, we find P500,000.00 for moral damages excessive. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, P50,000.00 should be adequate.[57] In addition, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is also automatically awarded to the heirs without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[58]

GR No. 133886

2001-09-05

PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

With regard to the civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the trial court in the amount of P50,000.00, the same is proper considering that the civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[43]

GR No. 129960

2001-08-28

PEOPLE v. PEDRO CARIÑO

QUISUMBING, J.

Rolando's relationship with the victim, in our view, does not taint his testimony. In fact, it tends to strengthen his credibility as the interest of the victim's kinsmen is to secure the conviction of the guilty. This natural inclination deters them from implicating persons other than the real culprits.[29]

GR No. 134756

2001-02-13

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO PEREZ Y DE LEON

PANGANIBAN, J.

The trial court correctly awarded P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[17] We also sustain the award of P30,000 as actual damages, for this was supported by evidence. But while we also agree that the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages, we hold that the amount granted by the trial court should be reduced from P100,000 to P50,000.

GR No. 108618

2001-02-06

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO PABILLANO

QUISUMBING, J.

All the said three (3) witnesses who positively identified the accused established the bases for their identification and notably, their testimonies particularly in relation thereto, were not impeached.[21] No reason or motive was adduced by appellants why any of the prosecution witnesses should falsely accuse them. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill-motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[22] The natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim, (such as Jose Roño, III, the son of Jose Jr.) in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[23] Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence, such as Jose Roño, III himself, have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.[24] We have no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible, and that their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime has been reliably established.

GR Nos. 107529-30

2001-01-29

PEOPLE v. PATRICIO Y. BAGCAL

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that appellant could not say why the two eyewitnesses should falsely accuse him. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] Furthermore, eyewitness Leovilgildo Cartalla is the brother of victim Leonides Cartalla. The natural interest of a witness, who is a relative of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[24]

GR No. 131924

2000-12-26

PEOPLE v. VS.CARLITO CORTEZ

BELLOSILLO, J.

With regard to the civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the trial court in the amount of P50,000.00, the same is proper considering that civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commisssion of the crime.[21]

	GR No. 205735 2015-02-04	CONCEPCION A. VILLENA v. BATANGAS II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Dissatisfied, Villena filed a petition for certiorari[35] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 120170.
	GR No. 185162 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLLY GIDOC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offender might make.[21] The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latter's part.[22]
	GR No. 148859 2002-09-24	HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
the crime to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[20] Where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was actuated by any improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony given is accorded full faith and credit. To sustain a conviction for theft, the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent; (2) the act of taking the personal property of another must be done without the use of violence against or
	GR Nos. 127759-60 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 2211-142, the lower court ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of the late P/Insp. Edgardo Miguel P78,000.00 as actual damages and P500,000.00 as moral damages. However, only a receipt of the Basilan Memorial Chapel for P20,000.00[55] was presented. Actual damages may only be awarded for expenses duly supported by receipts.[56] In this case then, actual damages should be only P20,000.00. Likewise, we find P500,000.00 for moral damages excessive. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, P50,000.00 should be adequate.[57] In addition, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is also automatically awarded to the heirs without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[58]
	GR No. 133886 2001-09-05	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
With regard to the civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the trial court in the amount of P50,000.00, the same is proper considering that the civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[43]
	GR No. 129960 2001-08-28	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CARIÑO QUISUMBING, J.
Rolando's relationship with the victim, in our view, does not taint his testimony. In fact, it tends to strengthen his credibility as the interest of the victim's kinsmen is to secure the conviction of the guilty. This natural inclination deters them from implicating persons other than the real culprits.[29]
	GR No. 134756 2001-02-13	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO PEREZ Y DE LEON PANGANIBAN, J.
The trial court correctly awarded P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[17] We also sustain the award of P30,000 as actual damages, for this was supported by evidence. But while we also agree that the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages, we hold that the amount granted by the trial court should be reduced from P100,000 to P50,000.
	GR No. 108618 2001-02-06	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO PABILLANO QUISUMBING, J.
All the said three (3) witnesses who positively identified the accused established the bases for their identification and notably, their testimonies particularly in relation thereto, were not impeached.[21] No reason or motive was adduced by appellants why any of the prosecution witnesses should falsely accuse them. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill-motive, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[22] The natural interest of a witness who is a relative of the victim, (such as Jose Roño, III, the son of Jose Jr.) in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[23] Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence, such as Jose Roño, III himself, have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.[24] We have no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible, and that their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime has been reliably established.
	GR Nos. 107529-30 2001-01-29	PEOPLE v. PATRICIO Y. BAGCAL QUISUMBING, J.
We note that appellant could not say why the two eyewitnesses should falsely accuse him. Where there is no evidence to show that the principal witnesses for the State were actuated by ill motive, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] Furthermore, eyewitness Leovilgildo Cartalla is the brother of victim Leonides Cartalla. The natural interest of a witness, who is a relative of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating a person other than the true culprit.[24]
	GR No. 131924 2000-12-26	PEOPLE v. VS.CARLITO CORTEZ BELLOSILLO, J.
With regard to the civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the trial court in the amount of P50,000.00, the same is proper considering that civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commisssion of the crime.[21]

PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG