Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. YANSON-DUMANCAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 172707 2013-10-01	PEOPLE v. HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL PEREZ, J.
Time and again, this Court has maintained that the question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. For this reason, its observations and conclusions are accorded great respect on appeal. They are conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered.[31] In People v. Tañedo,[32] this Court had occasion to reiterate the ruling that findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great respect since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while they testified in court.[33] It can be observed that the briefs submitted by the accused-appellants are replete with generalities and wanting in relevant particulars. It is for this reason that we are giving full credence to the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witness Chan.
	GR No. 185493 2011-02-02	LTC. ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
Second. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed the offense charged by "causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a proceeding when they did not in fact so participate."[22] In People v. Yanson-Dumancas,[23] the Court held that a person may induce another to commit a crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward or promise; and 2) by using words of command. In this case, the Sandiganbayan found that Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the "receive" portion of the payrolls as payee to make it appear that persons whose names appeared on the same had signed the document when they in fact did not.[24]
	GR No. 179280 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CALANGI CARPIO MORALES, J.
In view of appellant's death, the dismissal of the cases under review, Criminal Case Nos. 6886-G and 6888-G is in order. The dismissal by reason of appellant's death has the force and effect of an acquittal,[24] the constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence in his favor not having been overcome by a final finding of guilt. His civil liability ex delicto is accordingly extinguished.[25]
	GR No. 167671 2008-09-03	RICARDO S. SANTOS v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Petitioner claims that he could not have induced Cruz to falsify the travel expense voucher because he did not have the power of supervision or control over Cruz. We disagree. The power of supervision or control over another does not preclude inducement. A person may be induced to commit a crime in two ways: (1) by giving a price or offering a reward or promise and (2) by using words of command.[25] In this case, petitioner was found by both the CFI and the CA to have offered Cruz a share of the proceeds in exchange for his act of falsification. That promise was the inducement for the falsification.
	GR No. 135542 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO VIÑALON Y SAN AGUSTIN QUISUMBING, J.
respectively, the records, however, are bereft of proof that the two unidentified muggers were also armed. For one, prosecution eyewitness Solomon testified that he did not see whether or not the two other hold-up men were armed.[44] Next, while prosecution witness Elidio stated in his affidavit that all four of the hold-up men were armed when they announced a hold-up (apat na holdaper na armado ng patalim at baril, at sila ay nagsabi ng "Holdap"),[45] he, however, admitted during his testimony in court that he could not identify the two other malefactors nor did he see whether or not they were armed.[46] His testimony on the witness stand should be held more weighty than his affidavit, for ex parte affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in open court.[47] Thus, we find that for lack of sufficient proof the aggravating circumstance of "in band" must be ruled out. It follows that there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua.[48] Accordingly, the grant of damages needs to be modified. The sum of P50,000 is properly awarded as civil indemnity for the wrongful death of PO1 Llave without need of proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[49] In addition, another sum of
	GR Nos. 97472-73 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. VS.VICENTE PACAÑA Y SENARLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Both Bernardo's civil and criminal liability were extinguished by his death.[8]
	GR No. 130594 2000-07-05	PEOPLE v. AKMAD SIRAD PARDO, J.
The witness for the prosecution Rita Pino testified that she saw the motorcycle of George Lozano ridden by three men when it passed by the cotton farm in barangay Cabuway, General Santos City.[6] She was able to identify the accused. She was unwavering in her declaration. According to the accused-appellants, there were inconsistencies between the signed statement of Rita Pino that "she was invited to go to the police station to identify the suspects"[7] and her statements in open court that "she came to the police station out of her own volition"[8] which placed a doubt on her credibility. This is not the first time that the Court will hold that discrepancies between the statements of an affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex-parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations.[9]
	GR Nos. 111734-35 2000-06-16	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO A. MALAPAYON PARDO, J.
However, an award of moral damages is in order. Wilhelmina testified that the kidnapping had an adverse effect on her, making her constantly fearful.[61] In People v. Jeanette Yanson- Dumancas,[62] also a case of kidnapping for ransom, the principals were ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). We do the same here.