Lawyerly

GR NO. 169075

2007-02-23

GARCIA, J.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[13] The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[14] At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[15]

GR No. 122736

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q You did not recognize that somebody when he was raping you because it was dark in your store, is it not? A I recognized him when he went out of the door and his face was lighted, ma'm. Q What was the position of the accused when you saw him on the lighted part of that kitchen of yours? A He happened to face me, ma'm. Q Is it not Mrs. witness that there were many persons where your store is situated? A There were no persons because it was early morning, ma'm.[12] Equally, accused-appellant's defense of alibi, aside from being inherently weak,[13] cannot prosper, in the light of the evidence that the store where the victim was raped, on the one hand, and the store of accused-appellant's relative where he also stays, on the other hand, is just a meter apart. It was not, therefore, physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over accused-appellant's positive identification as the rapist.[14] The argument of the defense that the reason why accused-appellant was charged was because he was considered a "bad person" is too shallow an excuse. No ill motive can be attributed to the person who reported the rape to the police, just as no wrongful motive can be imputed on the victim in charging accused-appellant with a serious accusation.

GR No. 132065

2001-04-03

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MUNDO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused-appellant disclaims ravishing his own daughter. His bare denial, however, cannot withstand his positive identification by the victim as the person who forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Likewise, accused-appellant's invocation of alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification as the rapist by no less than the victim herself, who was not shown to have harbored any ill motive against the former.[11] Being inherently weak and unreliable,[12] accused-appellant's alibi must fail.[13] The victim's failure to immediately reveal his father's incestuous acts is not indicative of fabricated charges.[14] She was being sexually ravished since she was only eight years old. The fear of being killed was instilled in her innocent mind and young heart by her own father, who had the moral obligation to nurture her. Until she reached the age of fifteen, Michelle never told anyone that she was continuously being victimized sexually by accused-appellant. Only when she became pregnant was she compelled to speak out. Her unavoidably embarrassing situation impelled her to reveal the barbarous acts not only to his family but also to friends.

GR Nos. 97472-73

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. VS.VICENTE PACAÑA Y SENARLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Against the strong evidence of the prosecution, appellants could only offer denial and alibi. Settled is the rule, however, that such defenses which are inherently weak in nature cannot be given credence in the light of positive identification,[17] which in this case was made by no less than one of the surviving victims, Felizardo: Q When did you first when I come to know that Victoriano had a pipe with him? A After I was already hit was leaning I saw Victoriano had a pipe because the distance was very near. Q And at that very moment that was the time Victoriano hit Raul at his neck? A Yes. x x x x x x x x x Q And Virgilio and Bernardo were directly in front of you? A Yes. Q And this is only about 2 meters by 2 meters? A Yes, it was only small. Q Is it not a fact that you were most concerned of your safety? A Yes, I kept on pressing my chest. Q And since, according to you, it was Bernardo who stabbed you three times, your attention was more focused on Bernardo that Bernardo might stab you again? A When Bernardo stabbed me I parried and I was wounded on my wrist and so Bernardo made another thrust and I was hit on my chest. That was the time when I was able to move back and faced Raul and that was the time when Victoriano hit Raul with a pipe. Q Did you actually see Victoriano or you just saw Raul just leaning forward? A Yes, I saw Victoriano hit Raul and Raul seemed to fall so I went down.[18] (Italics supplied).

GR No. 129371

2000-10-04

PEOPLE v. ROMEO SANTIAGO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

This Court has held that where all indicia tend to support the conclusion that the attack was sudden and unexpected but there are no precise data on this point, treachery cannot be taken into account. Treachery cannot be established from mere suppositions drawn from the circumstances prior to the moment of the aggression that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.[4] When the witnesses did not see how the attack was carried out and cannot testify on how it began, the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances of the case that there was treachery. Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. Mere probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish each element necessary to convict. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself.[5]

GR No. 128821

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ORIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In stark contrast, all that accused-appellants could muster in their defense are denials. In People v. Edgar Lopez y Emoylan,[41] this Court pointedly declared that "[A]ppellant's proffer of denial and uncorroborated alibi, which are inherently weak defenses[42] cannot therefore be given credence. Appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified on positive points."[43]

GR No. 115192

2000-03-07

PEOPLE v. ELMER SALAS Y DAVID

QUISUMBING, J.

In this case, there was no eyewitness nor direct evidence, either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered. However, direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its findings and conclusion of culpability. [8] Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.

GR No. 123102

2000-02-29

PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES

QUISUMBING, J.

As to the sufficiency of evidence to convict appellant, we have likewise held that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[22] Under Section 4 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, conviction may be had even on circumstantial evidence provided three requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 123102

2000-02-29

PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES

QUISUMBING, J.

For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[30] Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person,[31] a conclusion adequately proven in this case.

GR No. 123102

2000-02-29

PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES

QUISUMBING, J.

For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[30] Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person,[31] a conclusion adequately proven in this case.

GR No. 125936

2000-02-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ

PARDO, J.

The Court deplores the fact that an innocent person lost his life in a most tragic manner. In criminal cases, it is the prosecution's duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or of any other crime proved necessarily included therein.[25] In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support conviction for robbery with homicide, the crime charged. Neither robbery nor homicide was proved. However, the prosecution's evidence proved the commission of qualified theft, sufficiently included in the allegations of the information.[26] The property stolen is a motor vehicle, hence, accused-appellant may be convicted of qualified theft, not robbery with homicide.[27]

GR No. 133025

2000-02-17

PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[18] The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability.[19] Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.[20]

GR No. 119595

2000-01-25

PEOPLE v. JOVITO BARONA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Actual damages were correctly awarded to the victim's mother, considering that she spent for the funeral and burial expenses. However, the award of P50,000.00 designated as "compensatory damages" by the trial court should be properly denominated as civil indemnity. This amount of indemnity is in accordance with recent jurisprudence and it requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellants' responsibility therefor.[25] However, with the exception of the award of actual damages, all the other damages and monetary awards should be granted to the heirs of the victim and not solely to his mother. Under the law, succession pertains in the first place, to the descending direct line.[26] If the decease is survived by legitimate children, it excludes his parents and ascendants.[27]

	GR NO. 169075 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN GARCIA, J.
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[13] The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[14] At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[15]
	GR No. 122736 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. FROILAN PADILLA Y VALENZUELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q You did not recognize that somebody when he was raping you because it was dark in your store, is it not? A I recognized him when he went out of the door and his face was lighted, ma'm. Q What was the position of the accused when you saw him on the lighted part of that kitchen of yours? A He happened to face me, ma'm. Q Is it not Mrs. witness that there were many persons where your store is situated? A There were no persons because it was early morning, ma'm.[12] Equally, accused-appellant's defense of alibi, aside from being inherently weak,[13] cannot prosper, in the light of the evidence that the store where the victim was raped, on the one hand, and the store of accused-appellant's relative where he also stays, on the other hand, is just a meter apart. It was not, therefore, physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over accused-appellant's positive identification as the rapist.[14] The argument of the defense that the reason why accused-appellant was charged was because he was considered a "bad person" is too shallow an excuse. No ill motive can be attributed to the person who reported the rape to the police, just as no wrongful motive can be imputed on the victim in charging accused-appellant with a serious accusation.
	GR No. 132065 2001-04-03	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellant disclaims ravishing his own daughter. His bare denial, however, cannot withstand his positive identification by the victim as the person who forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Likewise, accused-appellant's invocation of alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification as the rapist by no less than the victim herself, who was not shown to have harbored any ill motive against the former.[11] Being inherently weak and unreliable,[12] accused-appellant's alibi must fail.[13] The victim's failure to immediately reveal his father's incestuous acts is not indicative of fabricated charges.[14] She was being sexually ravished since she was only eight years old. The fear of being killed was instilled in her innocent mind and young heart by her own father, who had the moral obligation to nurture her. Until she reached the age of fifteen, Michelle never told anyone that she was continuously being victimized sexually by accused-appellant. Only when she became pregnant was she compelled to speak out. Her unavoidably embarrassing situation impelled her to reveal the barbarous acts not only to his family but also to friends.
	GR Nos. 97472-73 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. VS.VICENTE PACAÑA Y SENARLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Against the strong evidence of the prosecution, appellants could only offer denial and alibi. Settled is the rule, however, that such defenses which are inherently weak in nature cannot be given credence in the light of positive identification,[17] which in this case was made by no less than one of the surviving victims, Felizardo: Q When did you first when I come to know that Victoriano had a pipe with him? A After I was already hit was leaning I saw Victoriano had a pipe because the distance was very near. Q And at that very moment that was the time Victoriano hit Raul at his neck? A Yes. x x x x x x x x x Q And Virgilio and Bernardo were directly in front of you? A Yes. Q And this is only about 2 meters by 2 meters? A Yes, it was only small. Q Is it not a fact that you were most concerned of your safety? A Yes, I kept on pressing my chest. Q And since, according to you, it was Bernardo who stabbed you three times, your attention was more focused on Bernardo that Bernardo might stab you again? A When Bernardo stabbed me I parried and I was wounded on my wrist and so Bernardo made another thrust and I was hit on my chest. That was the time when I was able to move back and faced Raul and that was the time when Victoriano hit Raul with a pipe. Q Did you actually see Victoriano or you just saw Raul just leaning forward? A Yes, I saw Victoriano hit Raul and Raul seemed to fall so I went down.[18] (Italics supplied).
	GR No. 129371 2000-10-04	PEOPLE v. ROMEO SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This Court has held that where all indicia tend to support the conclusion that the attack was sudden and unexpected but there are no precise data on this point, treachery cannot be taken into account. Treachery cannot be established from mere suppositions drawn from the circumstances prior to the moment of the aggression that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.[4] When the witnesses did not see how the attack was carried out and cannot testify on how it began, the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances of the case that there was treachery. Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. Mere probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish each element necessary to convict. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself.[5]
	GR No. 128821 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ORIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In stark contrast, all that accused-appellants could muster in their defense are denials. In People v. Edgar Lopez y Emoylan,[41] this Court pointedly declared that "[A]ppellant's proffer of denial and uncorroborated alibi, which are inherently weak defenses[42] cannot therefore be given credence. Appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of witnesses who testified on positive points."[43]
	GR No. 115192 2000-03-07	PEOPLE v. ELMER SALAS Y DAVID QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, there was no eyewitness nor direct evidence, either to the robbery or to the homicide and none of the things allegedly stolen were ever recovered. However, direct evidence is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its findings and conclusion of culpability. [8] Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.
	GR No. 123102 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES QUISUMBING, J.
As to the sufficiency of evidence to convict appellant, we have likewise held that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[22] Under Section 4 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, conviction may be had even on circumstantial evidence provided three requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 123102 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES QUISUMBING, J.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[30] Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person,[31] a conclusion adequately proven in this case.
	GR No. 123102 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. MADELO ESPINA Y CAÑASARES QUISUMBING, J.
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[30] Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person,[31] a conclusion adequately proven in this case.
	GR No. 125936 2000-02-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ PARDO, J.
The Court deplores the fact that an innocent person lost his life in a most tragic manner. In criminal cases, it is the prosecution's duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or of any other crime proved necessarily included therein.[25] In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support conviction for robbery with homicide, the crime charged. Neither robbery nor homicide was proved. However, the prosecution's evidence proved the commission of qualified theft, sufficiently included in the allegations of the information.[26] The property stolen is a motor vehicle, hence, accused-appellant may be convicted of qualified theft, not robbery with homicide.[27]
	GR No. 133025 2000-02-17	PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[18] The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability.[19] Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.[20]
	GR No. 119595 2000-01-25	PEOPLE v. JOVITO BARONA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Actual damages were correctly awarded to the victim's mother, considering that she spent for the funeral and burial expenses. However, the award of P50,000.00 designated as "compensatory damages" by the trial court should be properly denominated as civil indemnity. This amount of indemnity is in accordance with recent jurisprudence and it requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellants' responsibility therefor.[25] However, with the exception of the award of actual damages, all the other damages and monetary awards should be granted to the heirs of the victim and not solely to his mother. Under the law, succession pertains in the first place, to the descending direct line.[26] If the decease is survived by legitimate children, it excludes his parents and ascendants.[27]

PEOPLE v. EDGAR LOPEZ Y EMOYLAN