Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to the award of damages, in line with our ruling in People v. Sanchez,[49] the following amounts are to be imposed when the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua: PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) should likewise be added.[50]
	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
Hence, in line with our ruling in People v. Sanchez,[29] 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. These are the amounts proper in this case because of the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstance to offset it.
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
On the other hand, when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.[56]
	GR No. 172370 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. FLORENDA CASTRO REYES, R.T., J.
was introduced by the defense to corroborate their respective accounts and controvert the People's version of the incident placing them at the scene of the crime. Time and again, the Court has held that the defense of alibi is inherently weak especially when wanting in material corroboration.[41] Categorical declarations of witnesses for the prosecution of the details of the crime are more credible than the uncorroborated alibi interposed by accused.[42] We quote with approval the CA's elucidation along this line:Unsubstantiated by clear and convincing proofs, accused-appellants' respective denials necessarily fail. An intrinsically weak defense, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. Mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
	GR Nos. 112449-50 2000-07-31	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO SAN JUAN Y SALAZAR QUISUMBING, J.
material inconsistencies relied upon by appellant were sufficiently explained and clarified by Angela Ong. She testified on rebuttal that the accused looked taller and older at the time she was robbed because of his different hairstyle and his rugged clothing.[30] Moreover, we note that Angela Ong's statements respecting appellant's physical characteristics were descriptive estimates. An estimate contains room for inaccuracy. With respect to her failure to mention appellant's cheek mole in her sworn statement, there is no evidentiary rule to the effect that the omission of certain particulars in an affidavit would preclude or estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof during the trial.[31] Discrepancies between statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witness. For it is a matter of judicial notice, based on experience, that an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate.[32] What is significant in this case is that both complainants were able to unerringly and positively identify appellant as the malefactor, not only in open court but to their kin and neighbors. This positive identification by both victims was never debunked by the defense, even
	GR No. 132043 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. TEOFISTO COTAS Y LIMPIAHOY MENDOZA, J.
In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support the lower court's award. The only evidence in the record is the testimony of Tungala that her common-law husband used to earn a monthy salary of P5,000.00 from Cosmos Bottling Corporation, although at the time he died, he was not gainfully employed. No other evidence was presented to corroborate her testimony. In People v. Villanueva,[38] which is analogous to this case, the only evidence presented to support the claim for unearned income was the testimony of the victim's widow that her late husband earned about P2,500.00 a week from fish vending. This Court ruled that such testimony was insufficient because it was self-serving. Hence, it ordered the award made by the lower court deleted. This ruling was followed in People v. Sanchez[39] and People v. Ereño.[40]
	GR No. 129072 2000-01-19	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ABUBU Y VALDEZ BELLOSILLO, J.
Flordeliza S. Golocan positively identified accused-appellant as one of the assailants who shot her and her entire family. She declared that she knew accused-appellant because they used to hire him to spray their ricefields, get cogon grass for tying seedlings and spread the seedlings in their farm. She claimed that he even slept in their house.[15] As the court a quo had the unique opportunity to observe Flordeliza's demeanor on the stand, we find no reason to disturb its finding on her credibility. Verily, criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.[16]