Lawyerly

GR No. 181250

2012-07-18

BERSAMIN, J.

Both the RTC and the CA regarded as credible the testimonies of poseur buyer Agent Zuniga, Jr. and Agent Bautista on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. We concur with both lower courts, and hold that, indeed, the testimonies of the NBI agents as entrapping and arresting officers inspire belief and credence considering that the accused did not impute any ill-motive to them for testifying against them as they did. The RTC judge's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is accorded the highest respect because she had the unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses and had been thereby enabled to determine whether the witnesses were speaking the truth or prevaricating.[16] That evaluation, which the CA affirmed, is now binding on the Court because the appellant has not called attention to facts or circumstances of weight that might have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]

GR No. 169084

2012-01-18

PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS

BERSAMIN, J.

We reiterate that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witness that enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[16] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant reveals facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]

GR No. 173822

2010-10-13

SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the highest respect because the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[14] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[15] We thus apply the rule, considering that the petitioners have not called attention to and proved any overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted circumstance. Fortifying the application of the rule is that Mirandilla's positive declarations on the identities of the assailants prevailed over the petitioners' denials and alibi.[16]

GR No. 167464

2010-01-21

RONNIE SUMBILLO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

In People v. Pascual,[26] the Court held: Attempted Murder is punishable with the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is prision mayor. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional, and the maximum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium period.[27]

GR No. 185162

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROLLY GIDOC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[26] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[27] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.

GR No. 184173

2009-03-13

PEOPLE v. JUDITO MOLINA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[55] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[56] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.

GR No. 184343

2009-03-02

PEOPLE v. JESUS DOMINGO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[33] Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[34] Thus, P50,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Marvin Indon and P50,000.00 to the heirs of Melissa Indon.

GR No. 182548

2008-09-30

PEOPLE v. CESARIO OSIANAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[37] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[38] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims as civil indemnity is proper.

GR No. 181632

2008-09-25

PEOPLE v. JESSIE BALLESTA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[48] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[49] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.

GR No. 173824

2008-08-28

PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[69] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[70]

GR No. 173282

2008-03-04

JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[65] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[66] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[67]

GR No. 175594

2007-09-28

PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[35] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[36] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.

GR NO. 175881

2007-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[57] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[58] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded P25,000.00 as civil indemnity because the two accused who pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide were ordered to pay P25,000.00 or half of the P50,000.00 civil indemnity. Considering that half of the P50,000.00 was already paid, appellants should therefore pay only the difference.

GR NO. 174194

2007-03-20

PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is doctrinal that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and his/her testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the latter's untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and thus, to determine whether he/she is telling the truth.[32] It is also settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[33]

	GR No. 181250 2012-07-18	PEOPLE v. EMMALYN DELA CERNA Y QUINDAO BERSAMIN, J.
Both the RTC and the CA regarded as credible the testimonies of poseur buyer Agent Zuniga, Jr. and Agent Bautista on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. We concur with both lower courts, and hold that, indeed, the testimonies of the NBI agents as entrapping and arresting officers inspire belief and credence considering that the accused did not impute any ill-motive to them for testifying against them as they did. The RTC judge's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is accorded the highest respect because she had the unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses and had been thereby enabled to determine whether the witnesses were speaking the truth or prevaricating.[16] That evaluation, which the CA affirmed, is now binding on the Court because the appellant has not called attention to facts or circumstances of weight that might have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
We reiterate that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of his testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witness that enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[16] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless the appellant reveals facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[17]
	GR No. 173822 2010-10-13	SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the highest respect because the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not.[14] Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case.[15] We thus apply the rule, considering that the petitioners have not called attention to and proved any overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted circumstance. Fortifying the application of the rule is that Mirandilla's positive declarations on the identities of the assailants prevailed over the petitioners' denials and alibi.[16]
	GR No. 167464 2010-01-21	RONNIE SUMBILLO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In People v. Pascual,[26] the Court held: Attempted Murder is punishable with the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is prision mayor. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional, and the maximum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium period.[27]
	GR No. 185162 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLLY GIDOC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[26] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[27] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.
	GR No. 184173 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. JUDITO MOLINA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[55] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[56] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.
	GR No. 184343 2009-03-02	PEOPLE v. JESUS DOMINGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[33] Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[34] Thus, P50,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Marvin Indon and P50,000.00 to the heirs of Melissa Indon.
	GR No. 182548 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. CESARIO OSIANAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[37] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[38] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims as civil indemnity is proper.
	GR No. 181632 2008-09-25	PEOPLE v. JESSIE BALLESTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[48] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[49] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.
	GR No. 173824 2008-08-28	PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[69] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[70]
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[65] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[66] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[67]
	GR No. 175594 2007-09-28	PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[35] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[36] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.
	GR NO. 175881 2007-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[57] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[58] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded P25,000.00 as civil indemnity because the two accused who pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide were ordered to pay P25,000.00 or half of the P50,000.00 civil indemnity. Considering that half of the P50,000.00 was already paid, appellants should therefore pay only the difference.
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is doctrinal that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and his/her testimony is accorded the highest respect because of the latter's untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and thus, to determine whether he/she is telling the truth.[32] It is also settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[33]

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND PASCUAL Y BAUTISTA