Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA

This case has been cited 27 times or more.

	GR No. 175924 2012-03-14	PEOPLE v. ERLAND SABADLAB Y BAYQUEL BERSAMIN, J.
First of all, Sabadlab continues to assail the credibility of AAA's recollections. We understand why he does so, because the credibility of the victim's testimony is a primordial consideration in rape.[11] Yet, because both the RTC and the CA unanimously regarded AAA as a credible and spontaneous witness, he has now to present clear and persuasive reasons to convince us to reverse both lower courts' determination of credibility and to resolve the appeal his way.
	GR No. 186417 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MIRANDILLA PEREZ, J.
After the enactment R.A. 9346, [87] prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, questions arose as to the continued applicability of the Victor [88] ruling. Thus, in People v. Quiachon, [89] the Court pronounced that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 still applies because this indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of death, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the penalty of death attended the commission of the offense. [90] As explained in People v. Salome, [91] while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by the law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous. [92] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. [61] In People v. Quiachon, [62] even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because it is 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 explained in People v. Salome, [63] while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous. Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is proper.
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant to the heirs of Haide P75,000.00 as death indemnity;[59] P75,000.00 as moral damages;[60] and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.[61] As clarified in People v. Arbalate,[62] damages in such amounts are to be granted whenever the accused are adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, like the murder charged and proved herein. Indeed, the Court, observing in People v. Sarcia,[63] citing People v. Salome[64] and People v. Quiachon,[65] that the "principal consideration for the award of damages xxx is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender," announced that:
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
As a result, courts now cannot impose the penalty of death. Instead, they have to impose reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of damages, following the ruling in People v. Salome[47] and People v. Quiachon,[48] is "the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender."[49]
	GR No. 188610 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALBERT SANCHEZ Y GALERA VELASCO JR., J.
Clearly then, the presence of the attending circumstances of treachery and/or evident premeditation qualified the killing of Edgar and Jufer to murder, which, under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63[36] of the same Code provides that if the penalty prescribed is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there is an aggravating circumstance the higher penalty should be imposed. Since, evident premeditation can be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance, treachery, by itself, being sufficient to qualify the killing, the proper imposable penalty - the higher sanction - is death. However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346,[37] prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty for the killing of each of the victim is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[38] The penalty of reclusion perpetua thus imposed by the CA on appellant for each count of murder is correct. So is the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[39]
	GR No. 179570 2010-02-04	EGAP MADSALI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In People v. Quiachon,[56] even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because it is 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 explained in People v. Salome,[57] while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by the law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous. Accordingly, the civil indemnity for AAA is P75,000.00.
	GR No. 179714 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome[33] and People v. Quiachon[34] is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.
	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. 181899 2008-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROLLY MONTESA Y LUMIRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in awarding civil indemnity to AAA in each of the cases, since the grant of this damage is mandatory upon a finding of rape.[77] Both courts also acted properly in fixing the amount thereof at P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,[78] we explained that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper, as the said award is 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. In the present cases, appellant raped AAA in the latter's dwelling. This circumstance was alleged in the informations and proven during the trial.
	GR No. 167383 2008-09-22	PEOPLE v. AMADEO TINSAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It has also been held in People v. Quiachon[29] that R.A. No. 9346 has retroactive effect, to wit:The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in this case pursuant to the principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides as follows:
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law - favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. [53] This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. -- Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
	GR No. 173876 2008-06-27	VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was not shown to be a habitual criminal.[39] This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
	GR No. 177749 2007-12-17	PEOPLE v. MANUEL AGUILAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[35] Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[36] This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court.[37] Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" -- all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying.[38] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[39]
	GR NO. 166723 2007-08-02	PEOPLE v. ELMERATO DELA CRUZ Y FLORES QUISUMBING, J.
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. (Emphasis supplied.) This Court also sustains the Court of Appeals' ruling that the award of damages by the RTC should be modified. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[20] the civil indemnity and moral damages to be awarded are P75,000 and P75,000, respectively, for each conviction of rape which is qualified by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty; and P25,000 as exemplary damages for each conviction of rape[21] in light of the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Hence, appellant should pay AAA P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 174656 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO QUISUMBING, J.
Further, this Court upholds the Court of Appeals' ruling that the award of damages be modified. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[27] the civil indemnity and moral damages to be awarded are P75,000 and P75,000, respectively, for each conviction of rape which is qualified by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty, and P25,000 as exemplary damages in light of the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. Hence, appellant should pay AAA P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages.
	GR NO. 172118 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. WARLITO C. FERNANDEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, the amounts awarded insofar as the civil indemnity and moral damages are concerned must be modified. This Court has previously ruled that so long as the crime was committed under circumstances that would justify the imposition of the death penalty, the accused shall pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00.[64] This is true even if the death penalty cannot be imposed, as in this case, because said award does not depend on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.[65] The victim shall thus be awarded P75,000.00 in moral damages, instead of P50,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[66]
	GR NO. 169643 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. FILOMINO L. VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole should instead be imposed.[54]
	GR NO. 175316 2007-03-28	PEOPLE v. ROGER DURANO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We find no reason to disturb the trial court's finding on the credibility of complainant's testimony, for it is in a better position to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to directly observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. Well-settled is the rule that unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case, its findings carry great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[22]
	GR NO. 175946 2007-03-23	PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO DADULLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The assessment of the credibility of the witness' testimony lies with the trial court, for it is in a better position to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to directly observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Well settled is the rule that unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case, its findings carry great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal.[10]
	GR NO. 174199 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ALARCON Y TIOXON APPELLANT TINGA, J.
The latest jurisprudence on the matter was laid down in People v. Quiachon,[35] where the Court explicitly ruled that the imposition of the supreme penalty of death is proper if the special
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages for each count of rape, the same must be modified. The P100,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity[46] was properly reduced by the Court of Appeals to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[47] With respect to moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[48] Moreover, the P25,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[49]
	GR NO. 171447 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO TINGA, J.
Anent the accused's civil liability, we affirm the award of the amount of P50,000.00 by way of actual damages as civil indemnity is mandatory upon conviction of the crime of rape.[65] We, however, modify the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 in light of prevailing jurisprudence.[66] We further delete the award of exemplary damages there being no aggravating or qualifying circumstance proven in the commission of the offense but we resolve to award P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[67]
	GR NO. 170473 2006-10-12	PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS TINGA, J.
With respect to the civil liability of appellant, we affirm the RTC decision in awarding civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 which is mandatory upon a conviction for rape.[42] We however, modify the award of moral damages to P75,000.00,[43] in light of the prevailing jurisprudence that the victim is assumed to have suffered such damages.[44] The presence of the qualifying circumstance of minority necessitates the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[45]
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
Moreover, Gardon shall not be entitled to parole in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, Sec. 3 of which states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."[33]
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the award of damages, the same must be modified. The P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000.00 which is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[54] With respect to the award of moral damages, the trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[55] In addition, the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[56]