Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOSE BARCENAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177430 2009-07-14	RENE M. FRANCISCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty.[62] While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that to be proved by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose.[63]
	GR No. 173308 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. ELMER DE LA CRUZ CORONA, J.
On the issue of conspiracy, we hold that the prosecution sufficiently established it. There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be proven by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted with common purpose and design.[15]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
As this Court has reiterated often enough, the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.[40] In People v. Quijada,[41] the Court aptly held:Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
Verily, compared to appellate magistrates who merely deal and contend with the cold and inanimate pages of the transcript of stenographic notes and the original records brought before them, the trial judge confronts the victim or his heirs, the accused and their respective witnesses. He personally observes their conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. Moreover, it is also the trial judge who has the opportunity to pose clarificatory questions to the parties. Elsewise stated, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings, especially if affirmed by the CA, bear great weight, at times even finality, on the Court.[43] We see no cogent reason to depart from these settled doctrines.
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
Even assuming, for the nonce, that it was Marvin Baloes who inflicted the fatal stab, accused-appellant cannot escape culpability. Their obvious conspiracy is borne by the records. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of accused indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[44]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
That treachery or alevosia was present is incontrovertible. The essence of this qualifying circumstance is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.[51] It is employed to ensure the commission of the crime without the concomitant risk to the aggressor. The rule is well-settled in this jurisdiction that treachery may still be appreciated even though the victim was forewarned of danger to his person.[52] What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[53]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
The heirs of the victim Domingo Boji are likewise entitled to an additional award of P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages since the People clearly established treachery in the prosecution for murder.[70] Exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 should also be awarded to Virginia Boji in the separate conviction for less serious physical injuries.[71] When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[72]