Lawyerly

GR No. 181354

2013-02-27

MENDOZA, J.

The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[30] "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[31] "Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense."[32]

GR No. 181354

2013-02-27

SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

"When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor."[38] Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.[39]

GR No. 199892

2012-12-10

PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, whether or not petitioner acted in avoidance of greater evil or injury is a question of fact. It is an issue which concerns doubt or difference arising as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[38] In this connection, this Court declared in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[39]: [T]he well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.

GR No. 161178

2010-02-05

ADELA B. DELGADO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Delgado presents no reason for us to take the word of Alabado over that of Aquino. When it comes to weighing the credibility of the witnesses, this Court must bow to the trial court. In this regard, we reiterate the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb factual findings of the trial court since the latter has the unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[7] The well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[8] Petitioner has failed to present justification for this Court to disregard the factual findings of the trial court.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

To begin with, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.[27] We find ample evidence to establish that treachery attended the commission of the crime.

GR No. 183566

2009-05-08

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO

VELASCO JR., J.

On the other hand, the essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: (1) The offender performs all the acts of execution; (2) all the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (3) but the felony is not produced; and (4) by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.[15]

GR No. 173824

2008-08-28

PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[63] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[64] There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.[65]

GR No. 181594

2008-08-28

PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Herein, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were both correct when they held that the justifying circumstance of self-defense was baselessly invoked by appellant Rolly. The latter failed to discharge the burden of proving this justifiable circumstance. His claim that the victim initiated the fracas with his unlawful act of trying to stab the former is specious at best. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person - a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[41] But whether or not Rolly, indeed, acted in self-defense is a question of fact;[42] the well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court; and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[43]

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[62] Thus, the actual damages of P98,698.00 awarded to the heirs of Restituto Marikit should be sustained as the same is duly supported by receipts.[63] Such being the case, the award of temperate damages became superfluous and was correctly deleted by the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

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

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime.[48] The offender has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime.[49] Subjectively, the crime is complete.[50] Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime was not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender.[51] In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.[52]

GR No. 170136

2008-01-18

PEOPLE v. . ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO

CARPIO, J.

In this case, appellant killed April by hitting her head with a hammer and stabbing her neck using a bladed weapon. The medical and autopsy reports revealed that April sustained contusion, lacerated wounds and hematoma on the scalp and forehead, and a neck stab wound.[5] Clearly, the killing of April was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. There is treachery when the mode of the attack tends to insure the accomplishment of the criminal purpose without risk to the attacker arising from any defense the victim might offer.[6] Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength.[7] However, abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in treachery.[8]

GR NO. 168100

2007-11-20

PEOPLE v. MATEO DALEBA

CARPIO, J.

We also find merit in the lower courts' finding that treachery qualified Renato's killing. 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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[6] This circumstance will be appreciated if (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the form of attack he employed.[7]

GR NO. 174775

2007-10-11

PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY

CARPIO, J.

In Criminal Case No. U-10502, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. Hence, the penalty imposable upon appellant for frustrated murder is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the attendant aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed by the trial court falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) to reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). However, the trial court erroneously awarded damages to the heirs of Pedro Hidalgo instead of to the victim himself. We reduce the award of moral damages from P50,000 to P25,000 and increase the award of exemplary damages from P20,000 to P25,000.[24]

	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[30] "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[31] "Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense."[32]
	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
"When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor."[38] Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.[39]
	GR No. 199892 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, whether or not petitioner acted in avoidance of greater evil or injury is a question of fact. It is an issue which concerns doubt or difference arising as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[38] In this connection, this Court declared in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[39]: [T]he well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.
	GR No. 161178 2010-02-05	ADELA B. DELGADO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Delgado presents no reason for us to take the word of Alabado over that of Aquino. When it comes to weighing the credibility of the witnesses, this Court must bow to the trial court. In this regard, we reiterate the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb factual findings of the trial court since the latter has the unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[7] The well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[8] Petitioner has failed to present justification for this Court to disregard the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To begin with, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.[27] We find ample evidence to establish that treachery attended the commission of the crime.
	GR No. 183566 2009-05-08	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO VELASCO JR., J.
On the other hand, the essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: (1) The offender performs all the acts of execution; (2) all the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (3) but the felony is not produced; and (4) by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.[15]
	GR No. 173824 2008-08-28	PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[63] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[64] There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.[65]
	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were both correct when they held that the justifying circumstance of self-defense was baselessly invoked by appellant Rolly. The latter failed to discharge the burden of proving this justifiable circumstance. His claim that the victim initiated the fracas with his unlawful act of trying to stab the former is specious at best. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person - a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[41] But whether or not Rolly, indeed, acted in self-defense is a question of fact;[42] the well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court; and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[43]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party.[62] Thus, the actual damages of P98,698.00 awarded to the heirs of Restituto Marikit should be sustained as the same is duly supported by receipts.[63] Such being the case, the award of temperate damages became superfluous and was correctly deleted by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime.[48] The offender has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime.[49] Subjectively, the crime is complete.[50] Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime was not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender.[51] In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.[52]
	GR No. 170136 2008-01-18	PEOPLE v. . ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO CARPIO, J.
In this case, appellant killed April by hitting her head with a hammer and stabbing her neck using a bladed weapon. The medical and autopsy reports revealed that April sustained contusion, lacerated wounds and hematoma on the scalp and forehead, and a neck stab wound.[5] Clearly, the killing of April was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. There is treachery when the mode of the attack tends to insure the accomplishment of the criminal purpose without risk to the attacker arising from any defense the victim might offer.[6] Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength.[7] However, abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in treachery.[8]
	GR NO. 168100 2007-11-20	PEOPLE v. MATEO DALEBA CARPIO, J.
We also find merit in the lower courts' finding that treachery qualified Renato's killing. 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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[6] This circumstance will be appreciated if (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the form of attack he employed.[7]
	GR NO. 174775 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY CARPIO, J.
In Criminal Case No. U-10502, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. Hence, the penalty imposable upon appellant for frustrated murder is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the attendant aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed by the trial court falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) to reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). However, the trial court erroneously awarded damages to the heirs of Pedro Hidalgo instead of to the victim himself. We reduce the award of moral damages from P50,000 to P25,000 and increase the award of exemplary damages from P20,000 to P25,000.[24]

BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA