Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDILBERTO DURADO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 135050 2002-04-19	PEOPLE v. EFREN TEJERO QUISUMBING, J.
Needless to say, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence.[30] For indeed the trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[31]
	GR No. 131829 2000-06-23	PEOPLE v. RONNIE AGOMO-O MENDOZA, J.
This argument is without merit. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused indicating a common purpose, a concert of action, or community of interest.[39] That there was conspiracy in the case at bar is supported by the evidence on record. Freddie Agrabio testified that after shooting the driver, the accused ordered the passengers to give their money and valuables.[40] Although Freddie Agrabio could not specify who among the three divested him of his wallet because he was lying face down on the floor of the jeepney,[41] it is clear that accused-appellants took part in the robbery. Accused-appellant Paneza did not only take valuables from the passengers but also stabbed Freddie Agrabio, hitting the latter on the left elbow.[42] Jose Amador identified both accused-appellants Eddy Paneza as the one who took his wrist watch and wallet while simultaneously pointing a "pinote" at him,[43] and Servando as the one who frisked his waist as he was alighting from the jeepney.[44] Clearly, therefore, accused-appellants cooperated with one another in order to achieve their purpose of robbing the driver and his passengers. "[F]or collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the accused acted in concert showing that they had the same purpose or common design or that they were united in its execution."[45]
	GR No. 130683 2000-05-31	ELIGIO MADRID v. CA MENDOZA, J.
As is often the case, the question here is whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt petitioner's guilt. In general, we adhere to the principle that the assessment made by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[26] Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, the judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility.[27] However, where there is a showing that some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, we will not hesitate to make our own evaluation of the evidence.[28] Such is the case here.
	GR No. 132043 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. TEOFISTO COTAS Y LIMPIAHOY MENDOZA, J.
Third. Modifications should be made with regard to the damages awarded by the lower court. The awards of P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 indemnity to the heirs of the victim were proper.[35] However the actual damages of P20,000.00 should be reduced to P12,000.00 as this is the amount shown in the receipt (Exh. C) presented by the prosecution to evidence the expenses incurred by the victim's family in relation to Asuncion's death.
	GR No. 128821 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ORIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Actual damages were correctly awarded to the victim's heirs considering that they spent for the funeral and burial expenses. Consistent with controlling jurisprudence,[61] we sustain the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto.
	GR Nos. 128056-57 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. MARCOS PARAMIL Y CARURUCAN KAPUNAN, J.
As regards the civil liability of the accused, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to an indemnity of P50,000.00.[26] It also appears that the prosecution and the defense agreed to the amount of P20,000.00 as actual damages as a result of which the widow's testimony was dispensed with.[27] Exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 are also justified inasmuch as the homicide was committed with abuse of superior strength.[28] The award of moral damages is, however, unwarranted since there was no proof or admission to support the same.