Lawyerly

GR No. 180501

2008-12-24

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java:x x x Section 36 [of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]] requires that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be made as soon as the grounds [therefor] shall become reasonably apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.[23]

GR No. 175929

2008-12-16

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL DELA CRUZ

REYES, R.T., J.

In one case, this Court ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim "since the stabbing was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was not only unarmed, but was unable to defend himself."[84] In another case[85] where treachery was also appreciated, it was shown that the victims were totally unprepared for the sudden and unexpected attack of appellant.

GR No. 180501

2008-11-24

PEOPLE v. ROGER MENDOZA Y DELA CRUZ

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java:

GR No. 171452

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is too late in the day for appellant to object to the formulation of the offer and the manner of questioning adopted by the public prosecutor. Appellant should have interposed his objections in the course of the oral examination of AAA, as soon as the grounds therefor became reasonably apparent.[47] As it were, he raised not a whimper of protest as the public prosecutor recited his offer or propounded questions to AAA. Worse, appellant subjected AAA to cross-examination on the very matters covered by the questions being objected to;[48] therefore, he is barred from challenging the propriety thereof or the admissibility of the answers given.[49]

GR NO. 143404

2005-06-08

PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, the only defenses proffered by the appellants are denial and alibi, which are, however, the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of Perlita Mariano who pointed to and identified the appellants as the two of the malefactors.[53] Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[54] The Court notes that the appellants even admitted that they were in the dance hall before the stabbing, and that Jose left only after the incident. Moreover, Jose did not present any other witness to corroborate his alibi.

GR No. 137042

2003-06-17

PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is well-settled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[19] Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[20] It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[21]

GR No. 118573-74

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[29] Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out.[30] It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[31]

GR No. 128281

2000-05-30

PEOPLE v. CARLITO SARAGINA

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Another factor that negates accused-appellant's claim of self-defense is the fact that the accused-appellant eluded arrest from the time of the issuance of the RTC's Order of Arrest on September 25, 1992 up to the time when he was finally arrested on January 12, 1996.[16] Flight is a strong indication of guilt when it is done to escape from the authorities or to escape prosecution.[17]

GR No. 130658

2000-05-04

PEOPLE v. ORLITO GADIN

PARDO, J.

To justify an award of actual damages, it is necessary "to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss."[27] The award of actual damages can not be sustained without any tangible document to support such claim.[28] Thus, we delete the amount of actual damages, for lack of supporting evidence.[29]

GR No. 122739

2000-01-19

PEOPLE v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA

PARDO, J.

The rule is well-settled that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence to prove his claim shifts to him.[15] It is incumbent upon him to show the concurrent presence of all the elements of self-defense, namely, (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[16] Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element, whether in complete or incomplete self-defense.[17] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted to the killing.[18]

	GR No. 180501 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER MENDOZA Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java:x x x Section 36 [of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]] requires that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be made as soon as the grounds [therefor] shall become reasonably apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.[23]
	GR No. 175929 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL DELA CRUZ REYES, R.T., J.
In one case, this Court ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim "since the stabbing was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was not only unarmed, but was unable to defend himself."[84] In another case[85] where treachery was also appreciated, it was shown that the victims were totally unprepared for the sudden and unexpected attack of appellant.
	GR No. 180501 2008-11-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER MENDOZA Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java:
	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is too late in the day for appellant to object to the formulation of the offer and the manner of questioning adopted by the public prosecutor. Appellant should have interposed his objections in the course of the oral examination of AAA, as soon as the grounds therefor became reasonably apparent.[47] As it were, he raised not a whimper of protest as the public prosecutor recited his offer or propounded questions to AAA. Worse, appellant subjected AAA to cross-examination on the very matters covered by the questions being objected to;[48] therefore, he is barred from challenging the propriety thereof or the admissibility of the answers given.[49]
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the only defenses proffered by the appellants are denial and alibi, which are, however, the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of Perlita Mariano who pointed to and identified the appellants as the two of the malefactors.[53] Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[54] The Court notes that the appellants even admitted that they were in the dance hall before the stabbing, and that Jose left only after the incident. Moreover, Jose did not present any other witness to corroborate his alibi.
	GR No. 137042 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well-settled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[19] Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[20] It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[21]
	GR No. 118573-74 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[29] Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out.[30] It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[31]
	GR No. 128281 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. CARLITO SARAGINA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Another factor that negates accused-appellant's claim of self-defense is the fact that the accused-appellant eluded arrest from the time of the issuance of the RTC's Order of Arrest on September 25, 1992 up to the time when he was finally arrested on January 12, 1996.[16] Flight is a strong indication of guilt when it is done to escape from the authorities or to escape prosecution.[17]
	GR No. 130658 2000-05-04	PEOPLE v. ORLITO GADIN PARDO, J.
To justify an award of actual damages, it is necessary "to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss."[27] The award of actual damages can not be sustained without any tangible document to support such claim.[28] Thus, we delete the amount of actual damages, for lack of supporting evidence.[29]
	GR No. 122739 2000-01-19	PEOPLE v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA PARDO, J.
The rule is well-settled that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence to prove his claim shifts to him.[15] It is incumbent upon him to show the concurrent presence of all the elements of self-defense, namely, (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[16] Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element, whether in complete or incomplete self-defense.[17] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted to the killing.[18]

PEOPLE v. CESARIO SANCHEZ