Lawyerly

AM No. MTJ-08-1699

2009-03-13

RODOLFO B. BAYGAR v. JUDGE LILIAN D. PANONTONGAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Administrative complaints leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for their consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[26] A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function no less than any other public officer.[27] The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[29]

GR No. 176609

2008-12-18

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The seemingly confusing statements in the RTC Decision may be a mere result of inadvertence in the drafting of the same. Nevertheless, petitioner cannot capitalize on such in arguing his case. He cannot pluck and cite some portions of the RTC Decision which fit his defense and disregard or omit those parts which are adverse to him. It should be borne in mind that the decision of the court should be read and understood in its entirety.[27]

GR No. 178233

2008-12-04

JOSEPH A. GANDOL v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[34] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[35] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[36] Neither did the presence of "defense wounds" on the body of the victim rule out treachery.[37]

GR No. 177276

2008-08-20

GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[23] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[24] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[25] In the instant case, the victim who fixed his attention to what he was doing and was unwary of what the assailants were about to do, and without warning, was suddenly mauled by the three. When he was about to get out from the canal, he was again hit. The barrage of bodily harm inflicted on the victim culminated in the stabbing. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression. He was unarmed when he was attacked. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. While he was at some point able to avoid some of the stab blows, that does not mean that the aggression was not sudden. The survival instinct, which is inherent in every extant human being, may have worked well for the victim, or he might just have been fortunate to escape some of the thrusts dealt him, but these things would not negate the presence of treachery. Contrary to petitioner's claim, there was no heated argument preceding the aggression. Victim Rommel Camacho merely testified that when he was ordered by Jeffrey to get out of the way, he answered that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. Jeffrey's order and the victim's answer can hardly be considered as a heated argument.

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[58] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[59] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[60]

GR NO. 173797

2007-08-31

PEOPLE v. EMMANUEL ROCHA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, however, is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. After a case has been submitted to the court for decision, the appellant cannot, at his election, withdraw the appeal.[21] In People v. Casido,[22] we denied the accused-appelant's Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal therein:It is then clear that the conditional pardons separately extended to the accused-appellants were issued during the pendency of their instant appeal.

GR NO. 173197

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[17] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[18] In the instant case, the victim was, without warning, bludgeoned by appellant at the back of her head. When she fell to the ground, appellant again hit her twice with the lead pipe. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the aggression. She was unarmed when she was clubbed. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous.

GR NO. 172324

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Thus, this Court has ruled that even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[21] Treachery can still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his/her person.[22] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[23] In the present case, the victim did not even have sufficient warning of the danger that was looming, since the attack against her came from behind and was so sudden and unexpected, thus giving the victim no time to flee or to prepare her defense or enable her to offer the least resistance to the sudden assault.

GR No. 139970

2002-06-06

PEOPLE v. JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellant assails as purely speculative or conjectural the trial court's findings that his testimony is of doubtful veracity and that the wound in his hand is nothing but a self-inflicted injury. He contends that these findings disclose partiality against him on the part of the trial judge. Unfortunately, appellant's contention are not borne by the records of the case. Moreover, a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions. The findings by the trial judge are not manifestation of bias or partiality, but they are the result of observations by the judge that he properly took into account in the rendition of judgment.[25]

GR No. 123149

2001-03-27

PEOPLE v. CORNELIO CABUG

MENDOZA, J.

While the withdrawal of an appeal is allowed before the filing of appellee's brief, after a case has been submitted for decision, the withdrawal of the appeal may be granted only in the sound discretion of the court.[37] In this case, accused-appellant filed his motion of withdrawal on April 27, 2000 after the appellee's brief had been filed on January 26, 1998 and after the case had been submitted for decision on July 6, 1998. In addition, the withdrawal of appeal would preclude the Court from making the necessary modifications in accused-appellant's civil liability.[38] The Court therefore resolved to deny accused-appellant's motion to withdraw his appeal in this case.

GR No. 121682

2000-04-12

PEOPLE v. BEN FRANCISCO Y ARABIANA

MENDOZA, J.

This contention is without merit. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In People v. Belaro,[13] this Court explained that the essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Even a frontal attack can, therefore, be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. As we had recently stated in People v. Floro:[14]

GR No. 109773

2000-03-30

PEOPLE v. ELBERTO BASE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Treachery is also alleged in the information indicting the accused. There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[78] The essence of alevosia is the swift and unexected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim's part.[79] The fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched.[80] Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.[81] In this case, the suddenness of the shooting without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself, clearly qualified the crime with treachery.[82]

	AM No. MTJ-08-1699 2009-03-13	RODOLFO B. BAYGAR v. JUDGE LILIAN D. PANONTONGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Administrative complaints leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for their consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[26] A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function no less than any other public officer.[27] The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[29]
	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The seemingly confusing statements in the RTC Decision may be a mere result of inadvertence in the drafting of the same. Nevertheless, petitioner cannot capitalize on such in arguing his case. He cannot pluck and cite some portions of the RTC Decision which fit his defense and disregard or omit those parts which are adverse to him. It should be borne in mind that the decision of the court should be read and understood in its entirety.[27]
	GR No. 178233 2008-12-04	JOSEPH A. GANDOL v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[34] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[35] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[36] Neither did the presence of "defense wounds" on the body of the victim rule out treachery.[37]
	GR No. 177276 2008-08-20	GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[23] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[24] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[25] In the instant case, the victim who fixed his attention to what he was doing and was unwary of what the assailants were about to do, and without warning, was suddenly mauled by the three. When he was about to get out from the canal, he was again hit. The barrage of bodily harm inflicted on the victim culminated in the stabbing. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression. He was unarmed when he was attacked. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. While he was at some point able to avoid some of the stab blows, that does not mean that the aggression was not sudden. The survival instinct, which is inherent in every extant human being, may have worked well for the victim, or he might just have been fortunate to escape some of the thrusts dealt him, but these things would not negate the presence of treachery. Contrary to petitioner's claim, there was no heated argument preceding the aggression. Victim Rommel Camacho merely testified that when he was ordered by Jeffrey to get out of the way, he answered that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. Jeffrey's order and the victim's answer can hardly be considered as a heated argument.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[58] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[59] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[60]
	GR NO. 173797 2007-08-31	PEOPLE v. EMMANUEL ROCHA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, however, is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. After a case has been submitted to the court for decision, the appellant cannot, at his election, withdraw the appeal.[21] In People v. Casido,[22] we denied the accused-appelant's Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal therein:It is then clear that the conditional pardons separately extended to the accused-appellants were issued during the pendency of their instant appeal.
	GR NO. 173197 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[17] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[18] In the instant case, the victim was, without warning, bludgeoned by appellant at the back of her head. When she fell to the ground, appellant again hit her twice with the lead pipe. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the aggression. She was unarmed when she was clubbed. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous.
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Thus, this Court has ruled that even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[21] Treachery can still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his/her person.[22] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[23] In the present case, the victim did not even have sufficient warning of the danger that was looming, since the attack against her came from behind and was so sudden and unexpected, thus giving the victim no time to flee or to prepare her defense or enable her to offer the least resistance to the sudden assault.
	GR No. 139970 2002-06-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant assails as purely speculative or conjectural the trial court's findings that his testimony is of doubtful veracity and that the wound in his hand is nothing but a self-inflicted injury. He contends that these findings disclose partiality against him on the part of the trial judge. Unfortunately, appellant's contention are not borne by the records of the case. Moreover, a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions. The findings by the trial judge are not manifestation of bias or partiality, but they are the result of observations by the judge that he properly took into account in the rendition of judgment.[25]
	GR No. 123149 2001-03-27	PEOPLE v. CORNELIO CABUG MENDOZA, J.
While the withdrawal of an appeal is allowed before the filing of appellee's brief, after a case has been submitted for decision, the withdrawal of the appeal may be granted only in the sound discretion of the court.[37] In this case, accused-appellant filed his motion of withdrawal on April 27, 2000 after the appellee's brief had been filed on January 26, 1998 and after the case had been submitted for decision on July 6, 1998. In addition, the withdrawal of appeal would preclude the Court from making the necessary modifications in accused-appellant's civil liability.[38] The Court therefore resolved to deny accused-appellant's motion to withdraw his appeal in this case.
	GR No. 121682 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. BEN FRANCISCO Y ARABIANA MENDOZA, J.
This contention is without merit. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In People v. Belaro,[13] this Court explained that the essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Even a frontal attack can, therefore, be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. As we had recently stated in People v. Floro:[14]
	GR No. 109773 2000-03-30	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO BASE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Treachery is also alleged in the information indicting the accused. There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[78] The essence of alevosia is the swift and unexected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim's part.[79] The fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched.[80] Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.[81] In this case, the suddenness of the shooting without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself, clearly qualified the crime with treachery.[82]

PEOPLE v. ROMEO BELARO