Lawyerly

GR No. 190862

2013-10-09

SERENO, C.J.

We also find that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[38] We have ruled that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep,[39] unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened.[40]

GR No. 187730

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO GALLO Y GADOT

VELASCO JR., J.

Indubitably, accused-appellant's denial of the crimes charged crumbles in the face of the positive identification made by Dela Caza and his co-complainants as one of the perpetrators of the crimes charged. As enunciated by this Court in People v. Abolidor,[16] "[p]ositive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."

GR No. 186119

2009-10-27

PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[58] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law did not specify otherwise.[59] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.[60]

GR No. 186101

2009-10-12

GINA A. DOMINGO

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, petitioner's defense of denial crumbles in the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses during trial. As enunciated by this Court, "[p]ositive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."[15] The defense has miserably failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to falsely testify against her.

GR No. 175605

2009-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Undoubtedly, accused-appellants' identities as the perpetrators were established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness was able to observe the entire incident, because she was there. Thus, we find no reason to differ with the trial court's appreciation of her testimony. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[18]

GR No. 185841

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. ISMAEL DIAZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[74] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law does not specify otherwise.[75] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to each of the heirs of the victims.[76]

GR No. 173023

2008-06-25

PEOPLE v. RESURRECCION RANIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Even as appellant Ranin had difficulty bending his right forefinger, this did not foreclose the possibility that he used any of his right hand fingers to pull the trigger. In fact, the result of the Nerve Conduction Studies [19] administered on appellant Ranin unqualifiedly indicated normal sensory conduction of his right radial nerve. To merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Unable to show such evidence, herein appellant Ranin failed to overcome de Castro's testimony, which positively identified him as the shooter. [20] It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical, consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law. [21] In the same vein, appellant Ranin's alibi that he had never been to UP fails in the face of positive identification by de Castro.

GR NO. 176267

2007-09-03

PEOPLE v. RANDY ALABADO Y DAVID

GARCIA, J.

Time and again, we have held that the attack on the victim who has just awakened or roused from sleep is one attended by treachery.[34] There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. There is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, because in such situation, the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense. [35] These must have explained the multiple stab wounds found on the body of Ricardo and the person of Evelyn.

GR NO. 157919

2007-01-30

CELIA Q. NOMBREFIA v. PEOPLE

On the third issue, on the issue of credibility of witnesses, it should be stressed that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, precisely because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they testify. Unless the trial court has overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance which if considered might affect the result of the case,[18] this Court is not inclined to disturb the factual determinations of the trial court. In this case, the trial court found that the testimonies are straightforward and credible. The witnesses had no reason to concoct stories to pin down petitioner on any criminal act. Hence, we agree with the lower court's findings on the credibility of the principal witnesses of the prosecution.

GR NO. 171017

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[40] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[41] In the instant case, the RTC gave credence to the "vivid and detailed account of the incident" of the prosecution witnesses which according to it, "vibrates with truth and sincerity." It noted that the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by Conrado bolstered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It also found no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses in testifying against appellant.

GR NO. 164545

2006-11-20

LORBE REBUCAN Y BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

To reiterate, the RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (private complainant, a certain Melanie Retiro and Monica) who all declared that the understated lists were the "sole handiwork" of petitioner since they are all very familiar with her handwriting as they were co-employees of the petitioner in the TBOS for number of years.[42] It noted that their testimonies were truthful because they were "unrehearsed, straightforward, categorical, natural and spontaneous."[43] In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[44] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[45]

GR NO. 168051

2006-09-27

PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is a well-settled doctrine in our jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[29] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[30] It is worth stressing at this point that the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[31] We find no compelling reason to deviate from such findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.

	GR No. 190862 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. RICARDO DEARO SERENO, C.J.
We also find that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[38] We have ruled that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep,[39] unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened.[40]
	GR No. 187730 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO GALLO Y GADOT VELASCO JR., J.
Indubitably, accused-appellant's denial of the crimes charged crumbles in the face of the positive identification made by Dela Caza and his co-complainants as one of the perpetrators of the crimes charged. As enunciated by this Court in People v. Abolidor,[16] "[p]ositive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."
	GR No. 186119 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. PABLO LUSABIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages, since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[58] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law did not specify otherwise.[59] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.[60]
	GR No. 186101 2009-10-12	GINA A. DOMINGO VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, petitioner's defense of denial crumbles in the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses during trial. As enunciated by this Court, "[p]ositive identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."[15] The defense has miserably failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to falsely testify against her.
	GR No. 175605 2009-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Undoubtedly, accused-appellants' identities as the perpetrators were established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness was able to observe the entire incident, because she was there. Thus, we find no reason to differ with the trial court's appreciation of her testimony. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[18]
	GR No. 185841 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. ISMAEL DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Both lower courts did not award exemplary damages. The heirs of the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[74] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, since the law does not specify otherwise.[75] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to each of the heirs of the victims.[76]
	GR No. 173023 2008-06-25	PEOPLE v. RESURRECCION RANIN QUISUMBING, J.
Even as appellant Ranin had difficulty bending his right forefinger, this did not foreclose the possibility that he used any of his right hand fingers to pull the trigger. In fact, the result of the Nerve Conduction Studies [19] administered on appellant Ranin unqualifiedly indicated normal sensory conduction of his right radial nerve. To merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Unable to show such evidence, herein appellant Ranin failed to overcome de Castro's testimony, which positively identified him as the shooter. [20] It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical, consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law. [21] In the same vein, appellant Ranin's alibi that he had never been to UP fails in the face of positive identification by de Castro.
	GR NO. 176267 2007-09-03	PEOPLE v. RANDY ALABADO Y DAVID GARCIA, J.
Time and again, we have held that the attack on the victim who has just awakened or roused from sleep is one attended by treachery.[34] There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. There is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, because in such situation, the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense. [35] These must have explained the multiple stab wounds found on the body of Ricardo and the person of Evelyn.
	GR NO. 157919 2007-01-30	CELIA Q. NOMBREFIA v. PEOPLE
On the third issue, on the issue of credibility of witnesses, it should be stressed that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, precisely because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they testify. Unless the trial court has overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance which if considered might affect the result of the case,[18] this Court is not inclined to disturb the factual determinations of the trial court. In this case, the trial court found that the testimonies are straightforward and credible. The witnesses had no reason to concoct stories to pin down petitioner on any criminal act. Hence, we agree with the lower court's findings on the credibility of the principal witnesses of the prosecution.
	GR NO. 171017 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[40] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[41] In the instant case, the RTC gave credence to the "vivid and detailed account of the incident" of the prosecution witnesses which according to it, "vibrates with truth and sincerity." It noted that the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by Conrado bolstered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It also found no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses in testifying against appellant.
	GR NO. 164545 2006-11-20	LORBE REBUCAN Y BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To reiterate, the RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (private complainant, a certain Melanie Retiro and Monica) who all declared that the understated lists were the "sole handiwork" of petitioner since they are all very familiar with her handwriting as they were co-employees of the petitioner in the TBOS for number of years.[42] It noted that their testimonies were truthful because they were "unrehearsed, straightforward, categorical, natural and spontaneous."[43] In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[44] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[45]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a well-settled doctrine in our jurisprudence that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[29] This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[30] It is worth stressing at this point that the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[31] We find no compelling reason to deviate from such findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.

PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR