Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROQUE G. GARALDE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if affirmed by the CA,[34] except when facts or circumstances of weight and influence were overlooked or the significance of which was misappreciated or misinterpreted by the lower courts.[35] Our judicious review of the records revealed no reason for us to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that a legitimate buy-bust operation was successfully conducted against Dela Peña on June 19, 2008.
	GR No. 185388 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO AWID ABAD, J.
As for damages, even if the death penalty cannot be imposed, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper since the qualifying circumstances that would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty attended the offense.[31] In addition, under Article 2219 (5) of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest.[32] This is predicated on Mrs. Lee's having suffered serious anxiety and fright during his four months of detention. An award of P100,000.00 in moral damages is warranted.[33]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
We also find that AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code, which provides that moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention.[63] This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was detained for more than five months. Thus, the Court awards the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[64]
	GR No. 181084 2009-06-16	PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS PUNO, C.J.
In Garces v. People,[89] People v. Flores,[90] People v. Barbosa,[91] People v. Ragundiaz,[92] People v. Bato,[93] and People v. Garalde,[94] the accomplice was held to be solidarity liable with the principal for only one-half (1/2) of the amount adjudged as civil indemnity. In Garces, the accomplice was held solidarity liable for half of the civil indemnity ex delicto but was made to pay the moral damages of P50,000.00 separately from the principal. In Flores, Ragundiaz, Bato, and Garalde, the accomplice was held solidarily liable for half of the combined amounts of the civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages. In Ragundiaz, the accomplice was also made solidarily liable with the principal for half of the actual damages, and in Garalde the accomplice was also held solidarily liable with the principal for half of the exemplary damages, aside from the civil and moral damages.
	GR No. 178300 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO REYES Y PAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals was also correct in ordering appellants to jointly and severally pay civil indemnity and exemplary damages to the Yao family. Nonetheless, their corresponding amounts should be modified. In People v. Quiachon,[110] we explained that even if the death penalty was not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 was still proper, as the said award was not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. As earlier stated, both the qualifying circumstances of demand for ransom and the double killing or death of two of the kidnap victims were alleged in the information and proven during trial. Thus, for the twin deaths of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond, their heirs (Yao San, Robert, Lenny, Matthew and Charlene) are entitled to a total amount of P150,000.00 as civil indemnity. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good.[111] In criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be recovered when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying.[112] Since both the qualifying circumstances of demand for ransom and the killing or death of two of the kidnap victims (Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond) while in captivity were alleged in the information and proven during trial, and in order to deter others from committing the same despicable acts, the award of exemplary damages is proper. The total amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be modified. In several cases,[113] we awarded an amount of P100,000.00 to each of the kidnap victims. As in this case, the amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be awarded each to Yao San, Robert, Lenny, Matthew, Charlene, Abagatnan and Ortea. This makes the total amount of exemplary damages add up to P700,000.00.
	GR No. 172696 2008-08-11	PEOPLE v. BENITO BALLESTEROS Y GRAGASIN BRION, J.
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA.[38] Despite the enhanced persuasive effect of the initial RTC factual ruling and the results of the CA's appellate factual review, we nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records of this case as the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the lower courts imposed on the accused demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.
	GR No. 174659 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. RAGA SARAPIDA MAMANTAK CORONA, J.
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.[13] The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the statements of Taurak and Mamantak did not deserve credence. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, are accorded great, if not conclusive, value when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[14]
	GR No. 173308 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. ELMER DE LA CRUZ CORONA, J.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 civil indemnity[17] was proper. Pursuant to People v. Garalde,[18] P200,000 for moral damages is awarded to Aaron considering his minority.[19] Moreover, since the crime was attended by a demand for ransom, and by way of example or correction, Aaron is entitled to P100,000 exemplary damages.[20]
	GR No. 174479 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA BRION, J.
The established rule in factual reviews before us is that the findings and conclusions of the trial court - including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies - are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if affirmed by the CA.[57] We nevertheless fully scrutinized the records under review since the review of this case is pursuant to a constitutional command, dictated no less by the highest stake - the life of the accused.[58]