Lawyerly

GR No. 187048

2013-01-23

PEREZ, J.

We have time and again declared that "[t]he essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape,"[16] and that it may still exist even if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and unexpected.[17]

GR No. 189355

2013-01-23

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Anent the inconsistencies between "AAA's" affidavit and her testimony in open court as pointed out by the appellant, the Court finds that the same are not material and refer only to minor details. The alleged contradictions as to whether appellant is her uncle or step-father and whether it was she or her friend who revealed her ordeal to her mother are inconsequential matters that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime charged or not. In People v. Tolentino,[16] we ruled that inconsistencies which are trivial and insignificant "do not warrant rejection of the entire testimony nor the reversal of the judgment. Accuracy in account ha[s] never been [used] as a standard [against] which the credibility of witnesses are tested since it is undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions x x x."

GR No. 182551

2011-07-27

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[68]

GR No. 176354

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[28] In murder, the grant of civil indemnity, which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of an accused's responsibility therefor.[29] Thus, the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded to the heirs of the victim is in order.

GR No. 186539

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA

VELASCO JR., J.

Based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Thus, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[57] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 50,000 are awarded automatically.[58] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim,[59] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[60]

GR No. 188602

2010-02-04

PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO

NACHURA, J.

And now, the award of damages. When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[25]

GR No. 186493

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO

NACHURA, J.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[49]

GR No. 180594

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD

NACHURA, J.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal, the penalty for the crime taking into account any modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal.[30] Since there is no modifying circumstance in the commission of the frustrated murder, an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is appropriate for the frustrated murder under the facts of this case. Thus, we sustain the penalty for frustrated murder as modified by the CA.

GR No. 185841

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. ISMAEL DIAZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is to be noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, the settled rule is that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[59] We find no compelling reason to deviate from their findings.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Further, the award of exemplary damages is also in order, considering that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in accordance with Article 2230 of the New Civil Code and under existing jurisprudence is justifiable. This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[43]

GR No. 183566

2009-05-08

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO

VELASCO JR., J.

To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.[13] Moreover, 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.[14]

GR Nos. 119660-61

2009-02-13

PAT. EDGARDO HERRERA Y BALTORIBIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

AZCUNA, J.

On the contrary, the killing of the two victims was proved to have been committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[33]

GR No. 168173

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES

BRION, J.

The award of exemplary damages is justified by the duly proven qualifying circumstance of treachery. The lower courts, however, awarded exemplary damages to the heirs of Elmer and Nestor in the amounts of P500,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce these amounts to P25,000.00 for each set of heirs.[98]

	GR No. 187048 2013-01-23	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PETELUNA PEREZ, J.
We have time and again declared that "[t]he essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape,"[16] and that it may still exist even if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and unexpected.[17]
	GR No. 189355 2013-01-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Anent the inconsistencies between "AAA's" affidavit and her testimony in open court as pointed out by the appellant, the Court finds that the same are not material and refer only to minor details. The alleged contradictions as to whether appellant is her uncle or step-father and whether it was she or her friend who revealed her ordeal to her mother are inconsequential matters that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime charged or not. In People v. Tolentino,[16] we ruled that inconsistencies which are trivial and insignificant "do not warrant rejection of the entire testimony nor the reversal of the judgment. Accuracy in account ha[s] never been [used] as a standard [against] which the credibility of witnesses are tested since it is undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions x x x."
	GR No. 182551 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[68]
	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[28] In murder, the grant of civil indemnity, which has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00, requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of an accused's responsibility therefor.[29] Thus, the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded to the heirs of the victim is in order.
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
Based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Thus, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[57] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 50,000 are awarded automatically.[58] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim,[59] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[60]
	GR No. 188602 2010-02-04	PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO NACHURA, J.
And now, the award of damages. When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[25]
	GR No. 186493 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO NACHURA, J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[49]
	GR No. 180594 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD NACHURA, J.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal, the penalty for the crime taking into account any modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of prision mayor which is one degree lower than reclusion temporal.[30] Since there is no modifying circumstance in the commission of the frustrated murder, an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is appropriate for the frustrated murder under the facts of this case. Thus, we sustain the penalty for frustrated murder as modified by the CA.
	GR No. 185841 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. ISMAEL DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is to be noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, the settled rule is that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[59] We find no compelling reason to deviate from their findings.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Further, the award of exemplary damages is also in order, considering that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. When a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in accordance with Article 2230 of the New Civil Code and under existing jurisprudence is justifiable. This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[43]
	GR No. 183566 2009-05-08	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO VELASCO JR., J.
To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.[13] Moreover, 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.[14]
	GR Nos. 119660-61 2009-02-13	PAT. EDGARDO HERRERA Y BALTORIBIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN AZCUNA, J.
On the contrary, the killing of the two victims was proved to have been committed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[33]
	GR No. 168173 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES BRION, J.
The award of exemplary damages is justified by the duly proven qualifying circumstance of treachery. The lower courts, however, awarded exemplary damages to the heirs of Elmer and Nestor in the amounts of P500,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively. To conform with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce these amounts to P25,000.00 for each set of heirs.[98]

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