Lawyerly

GR No. 181902

2011-08-31

PERALTA, J.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling[38] was also attendant in the present case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor.[39] In this case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victims without provocation on their part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house.[40] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[41] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[42]

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

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

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Also affirmed is the ruling of the RTC appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258. Evidence shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own house. When the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[61] Here, the crime was committed inside the house of the deceased victim. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.[62] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[63]

GR NO. 163705

2007-07-30

NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

On the lower court's disregard of defense witness Santos's testimony, we have consistently held that where the credibility of witnesses is an issue, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless some facts and circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case.[38] The Court accords deference to the trial court's appraisal on a witness's credibility, or lack thereof, because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying.[39] Given that the observation of the trial court with respect to Santos is supported by evidence, there is no ground to discredit the trial and appellate courts' assessment of Santos's testimony.

GR NO. 157804

2006-06-20

CERILO BRICENIO v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioner averred that the behavior of Concepcion and Singson cast serious doubts on their credibility inasmuch as their behavior are contrary to how men normally would behave. Petitioner relates that when the two men arrived at the scene, Concepcion and Singson fled instead of asking for help. In addition, they did not immediately narrate the incident to the police officers nor ask the police officers to visit the scene of the incident. We have said repeatedly that given stressful and life threatening situations, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable and cause different reactions in men.[12] Thus, there is no standard behavior for a person confronted with a shocking incident.[13] Consequently, as far as the alleged "unusual" behavior of Concepcion and Singson is concerned, we find no sufficient reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 141121

2003-07-17

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO LOZADA Y SALOPESA

PER CURIAM

The P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court to the heirs of the victim should be increased to P75,000.00 considering that the crime was committed under circumstances that justify the imposition of the death penalty.[19] The award of P200,000.00 moral damages shall be lowered to P50,000.00, in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence.[20] Apart from the actual damages in the amount of P87,303.70, duly supported by receipts,[21] the heirs of the victim should also be entitled to P25,000.00 exemplary damages in view of the presence of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.[22]

GR No. 142467

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR RENATO REYES

BELLOSILLO, J.

Accused-appellants assail the four (4)-month delay of Gerardo and Laila in divulging their knowledge of the identities of the assailants. The argument is unavailing. It is an established rule that failure to reveal the identities of the perpetrators of a crime does not affect, much less impair, the credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay has been adequately explained.[24]

GR No. 139622

2001-07-31

PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS

BELLOSILLO, J.

Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.[20] Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[21] Although accused-appellant was outside of the house when he fired, the victim was inside his house. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside.[22]

GR No. 116239

2000-11-29

PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO MERCADO Y HERNANDO

PER CURIAM

As to the award of P52,680.00 for actual damages incurred for wake and funeral expenses, only the amount of P22,690.00 is supported by receipts (Exhs. J-2 to J-7). Accused-appellants contend that these receipts constitute hearsay evidence because the witness who identified them, Lourdes Vergara, admitted that she merely collated the same but had otherwise no personal knowledge of the facts pertaining to their issuance.[55] In People vs. Paraiso,[56] this Court disregarded the list of burial expenses for being hearsay since it was prepared by the victim's sister-in-law and not by the victim's eldest son who testified thereon. The Court held that actual damages should be based upon competent proof and on the best evidence available.

GR No. 128114

2000-10-25

PEOPLE v. ROGER CANDO Y PAGDANGANAN

QUISUMBING, J.

characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed.[43] It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim and the other occupants of the house. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a "direct relation, and intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.[44] The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.[45] While Cando was bashing the head of the victim, and placing the personal items in his bag, nary a peep could be heard from Vargas and Rapcing. Their act of simply watching Cando shows their moral assent and complete acquiescence to the commission of the crime. Appellant Vargas claims that he was threatened at knife point to join appellant Cando in the commission of the crime. He is in effect invoking the exempting circumstance of compulsion of an irresistible force under Article 12, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code. We have held

GR No. 133918

2000-09-13

PEOPLE v. TIBOY ALBACIN

PUNO, J.

Contrary to accused Albacin's allegation, the three-day delay in Florencio's identification of the accused Albacin as the assailant does not erode his credibility. We have previously ruled that delay in revealing the author of the crime does not impair the credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[47] Florencio admitted that initially, he was not able to reveal the identity of the assailant because he was not in his right mind immediately after the shooting incident. A few days after the dastardly act was committed, he refused to reveal the identity of the perpetrator of the crimes because he wanted to take revenge against the accused Albacin. It was only upon insistence of his daughter Teresa that he was prevailed upon to report to the authorities the identity of the assailant and accordingly file a case against him.

GR No. 130656

2000-06-28

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REANZARES * also known as ARMANDO RIANZARES

BELLOSILLO, J.

The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of which the court can take judicial notice.[19]

GR No. 101335

2000-06-08

PEOPLE v. OSCAR ROBLES Y MOANA

QUISUMBING, J.

But, pursuant to existing jurisprudence, the amount of indemnity should be increased to P50,000.00 for the death of each of the victims.[36] In addition, the presence of one aggravating circumstance, which is the second killing, justifies the award of exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, which we now award in the amount of P10,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims. All the recovered items from the robbers should be and have been duly restituted to the lawful owners Jose Macalino and his daughter Beth M. Puzon.[37]

GR No. 130683

2000-05-31

ELIGIO MADRID v. CA

MENDOZA, J.

Likewise, the considerable length of time which lapsed before Merdelyn and Remedios Sunido made their statements before the police puts into question the claim that they actually witnessed the killing of Angel Sunido. It is true that delay in reporting a crime, if adequately explained, is not sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of a witness' testimony as, for instance, the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.[59]

GR No. 133872

2000-05-05

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER TAÑO Y CABALLERO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party and the latter has not given any provocation.[41] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human abode.[42] As one commentator puts it, one's dwelling place is a sanctuary worthy of respect; thus, one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who offends him elsewhere.[43] According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver alarm.[44]

GR No. 133226

2000-03-16

PEOPLE v. LOCSIN FABON

PER CURIAM

However, despite our finding that accused-appellant cannot be made liable for the aggravating circumstances of rape and intentional mutilation, a finding which would have lowered the penalty in the instant case to reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant will still have to suffer the supreme penalty of death due to the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling[80] which was alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[81] In People vs. Cabato,[82] we ruled that: "Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house."[83]

	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling[38] was also attendant in the present case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor.[39] In this case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victims without provocation on their part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house.[40] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[41] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[42]
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also affirmed is the ruling of the RTC appreciating the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258. Evidence shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own house. When the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[61] Here, the crime was committed inside the house of the deceased victim. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.[62] He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[63]
	GR NO. 163705 2007-07-30	NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
On the lower court's disregard of defense witness Santos's testimony, we have consistently held that where the credibility of witnesses is an issue, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless some facts and circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case.[38] The Court accords deference to the trial court's appraisal on a witness's credibility, or lack thereof, because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying.[39] Given that the observation of the trial court with respect to Santos is supported by evidence, there is no ground to discredit the trial and appellate courts' assessment of Santos's testimony.
	GR NO. 157804 2006-06-20	CERILO BRICENIO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner averred that the behavior of Concepcion and Singson cast serious doubts on their credibility inasmuch as their behavior are contrary to how men normally would behave. Petitioner relates that when the two men arrived at the scene, Concepcion and Singson fled instead of asking for help. In addition, they did not immediately narrate the incident to the police officers nor ask the police officers to visit the scene of the incident. We have said repeatedly that given stressful and life threatening situations, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable and cause different reactions in men.[12] Thus, there is no standard behavior for a person confronted with a shocking incident.[13] Consequently, as far as the alleged "unusual" behavior of Concepcion and Singson is concerned, we find no sufficient reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 141121 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO LOZADA Y SALOPESA PER CURIAM
The P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court to the heirs of the victim should be increased to P75,000.00 considering that the crime was committed under circumstances that justify the imposition of the death penalty.[19] The award of P200,000.00 moral damages shall be lowered to P50,000.00, in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence.[20] Apart from the actual damages in the amount of P87,303.70, duly supported by receipts,[21] the heirs of the victim should also be entitled to P25,000.00 exemplary damages in view of the presence of aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.[22]
	GR No. 142467 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR RENATO REYES BELLOSILLO, J.
Accused-appellants assail the four (4)-month delay of Gerardo and Laila in divulging their knowledge of the identities of the assailants. The argument is unavailing. It is an established rule that failure to reveal the identities of the perpetrators of a crime does not affect, much less impair, the credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay has been adequately explained.[24]
	GR No. 139622 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS BELLOSILLO, J.
Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.[20] Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.[21] Although accused-appellant was outside of the house when he fired, the victim was inside his house. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside.[22]
	GR No. 116239 2000-11-29	PEOPLE v. ELPIDIO MERCADO Y HERNANDO PER CURIAM
As to the award of P52,680.00 for actual damages incurred for wake and funeral expenses, only the amount of P22,690.00 is supported by receipts (Exhs. J-2 to J-7). Accused-appellants contend that these receipts constitute hearsay evidence because the witness who identified them, Lourdes Vergara, admitted that she merely collated the same but had otherwise no personal knowledge of the facts pertaining to their issuance.[55] In People vs. Paraiso,[56] this Court disregarded the list of burial expenses for being hearsay since it was prepared by the victim's sister-in-law and not by the victim's eldest son who testified thereon. The Court held that actual damages should be based upon competent proof and on the best evidence available.
	GR No. 128114 2000-10-25	PEOPLE v. ROGER CANDO Y PAGDANGANAN QUISUMBING, J.
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed.[43] It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim and the other occupants of the house. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a "direct relation, and intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.[44] The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.[45] While Cando was bashing the head of the victim, and placing the personal items in his bag, nary a peep could be heard from Vargas and Rapcing. Their act of simply watching Cando shows their moral assent and complete acquiescence to the commission of the crime. Appellant Vargas claims that he was threatened at knife point to join appellant Cando in the commission of the crime. He is in effect invoking the exempting circumstance of compulsion of an irresistible force under Article 12, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code. We have held
	GR No. 133918 2000-09-13	PEOPLE v. TIBOY ALBACIN PUNO, J.
Contrary to accused Albacin's allegation, the three-day delay in Florencio's identification of the accused Albacin as the assailant does not erode his credibility. We have previously ruled that delay in revealing the author of the crime does not impair the credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[47] Florencio admitted that initially, he was not able to reveal the identity of the assailant because he was not in his right mind immediately after the shooting incident. A few days after the dastardly act was committed, he refused to reveal the identity of the perpetrator of the crimes because he wanted to take revenge against the accused Albacin. It was only upon insistence of his daughter Teresa that he was prevailed upon to report to the authorities the identity of the assailant and accordingly file a case against him.
	GR No. 130656 2000-06-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REANZARES * also known as ARMANDO RIANZARES BELLOSILLO, J.
The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of which the court can take judicial notice.[19]
	GR No. 101335 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ROBLES Y MOANA QUISUMBING, J.
But, pursuant to existing jurisprudence, the amount of indemnity should be increased to P50,000.00 for the death of each of the victims.[36] In addition, the presence of one aggravating circumstance, which is the second killing, justifies the award of exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, which we now award in the amount of P10,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims. All the recovered items from the robbers should be and have been duly restituted to the lawful owners Jose Macalino and his daughter Beth M. Puzon.[37]
	GR No. 130683 2000-05-31	ELIGIO MADRID v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Likewise, the considerable length of time which lapsed before Merdelyn and Remedios Sunido made their statements before the police puts into question the claim that they actually witnessed the killing of Angel Sunido. It is true that delay in reporting a crime, if adequately explained, is not sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of a witness' testimony as, for instance, the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.[59]
	GR No. 133872 2000-05-05	PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER TAÑO Y CABALLERO PANGANIBAN, J.
Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party and the latter has not given any provocation.[41] It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human abode.[42] As one commentator puts it, one's dwelling place is a sanctuary worthy of respect; thus, one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who offends him elsewhere.[43] According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver alarm.[44]
	GR No. 133226 2000-03-16	PEOPLE v. LOCSIN FABON PER CURIAM
However, despite our finding that accused-appellant cannot be made liable for the aggravating circumstances of rape and intentional mutilation, a finding which would have lowered the penalty in the instant case to reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant will still have to suffer the supreme penalty of death due to the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling[80] which was alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode.[81] In People vs. Cabato,[82] we ruled that: "Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house."[83]

PEOPLE v. ROLAND PARAISO