Lawyerly

GR No. 188331

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES

NACHURA, J.

Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[11] The events narrated by the prosecution eyewitnesses point to the fact that Romeo could not have been aware that he would be attacked by appellant. There was no opportunity for him to defend himself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation, stabbed the victim at the back as they were about to partake of their lunch. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.[12]

GR NO. 145002

2006-01-24

PEOPLE v. PFC FLORO MALEJANA

AZCUNA, J.

Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself.[37] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.[38] The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[39] Thus, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[40]

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Q: Please describe them. A: They used knives.[63] Appellants vehemently deny having committed the crime. Jurisprudence however holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that appellants were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants.[64] To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[65] Also, being a negative defense, denial must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, it would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value of the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[66]

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, this Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail.[67] Indeed, positive identification of the appellants when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[68]

GR No. 123298

2003-11-27

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO

AZCUNA, J.

Lastly, modifications on the imposable penalty are in order. As the crime was committed prior to the amendment of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code by Republic Act 7659, the appropriate penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.[30] In view of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed in its proper period, pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the Code, which is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. [31] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being an ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and no aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be taken from the minimum period of the imposable penalty, which is prision mayor in its maximum period, while the minimum should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.

GR No. 126119

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP

AZCUNA, J.

As the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the appropriate penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. [41] Considering the presence of one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposable on appellants should be the minimum period, which is reclusion temporal in the maximum period. Hence, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty is anywhere within the maximum period of reclusion temporal, while the minimum penalty is anywhere within one degree lower thereto. [42]

GR No. 145166

2003-10-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ROMERO Y BARBACINA

AZCUNA, J.

In addition, the heirs of the victim was entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 given the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery as held in People v. Alfon. [64]

GR No. 122109

2003-06-25

PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO

AZCUNA, J.

Be that as it may, the information in Criminal Case No. L-5188 alleged that the crime was committed with treachery. The Court finds that treachery was satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[50] In the case at bar, the nature of the entrance wounds and the testimonies of eyewitnesses sufficiently establish that, first, at the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was shot from behind while on top of a motorcycle; and second, appellant consciously adopted the particular means of attack, as he was at the crime scene prior to the attack, armed and waiting for the victim to pass by.

GR No. 146271

2003-05-29

PEOPLE v. MARCIANO TINAMPAY

PUNO, J.

A: Aside from the 22nd March 1996, I still saw him on the 24th or March 26 in the station. Q: Where was he placed in the station? A: Still living outside. Q: In effect, you are saying that there was no physical restraint of this person? A: None, ma'am."[26] Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of moral damages is increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and of exemplary damages from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence.[27] We likewise award the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the insufficiency of evidence of the expenses incurred by the victim's heirs for the victim's wake and burial.[28]

GR No. 141518

2003-04-29

PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[44] As testified to by the widow of the deceased, the death of her husband brought grief and emotional suffering to their family.[45] Hence, they are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[46] Likewise, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the deceased justifies the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[47]

	GR No. 188331 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES NACHURA, J.
Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[11] The events narrated by the prosecution eyewitnesses point to the fact that Romeo could not have been aware that he would be attacked by appellant. There was no opportunity for him to defend himself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation, stabbed the victim at the back as they were about to partake of their lunch. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.[12]
	GR NO. 145002 2006-01-24	PEOPLE v. PFC FLORO MALEJANA AZCUNA, J.
Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself.[37] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.[38] The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[39] Thus, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[40]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Q: Please describe them. A: They used knives.[63] Appellants vehemently deny having committed the crime. Jurisprudence however holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that appellants were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants.[64] To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.[65] Also, being a negative defense, denial must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, it would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value of the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[66]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, this Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail.[67] Indeed, positive identification of the appellants when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[68]
	GR No. 123298 2003-11-27	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO AZCUNA, J.
Lastly, modifications on the imposable penalty are in order. As the crime was committed prior to the amendment of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code by Republic Act 7659, the appropriate penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.[30] In view of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed in its proper period, pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the Code, which is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. [31] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being an ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and no aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be taken from the minimum period of the imposable penalty, which is prision mayor in its maximum period, while the minimum should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.
	GR No. 126119 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP AZCUNA, J.
As the crime was committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the appropriate penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. [41] Considering the presence of one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposable on appellants should be the minimum period, which is reclusion temporal in the maximum period. Hence, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty is anywhere within the maximum period of reclusion temporal, while the minimum penalty is anywhere within one degree lower thereto. [42]
	GR No. 145166 2003-10-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ROMERO Y BARBACINA AZCUNA, J.
In addition, the heirs of the victim was entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 given the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery as held in People v. Alfon. [64]
	GR No. 122109 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO AZCUNA, J.
Be that as it may, the information in Criminal Case No. L-5188 alleged that the crime was committed with treachery. The Court finds that treachery was satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[50] In the case at bar, the nature of the entrance wounds and the testimonies of eyewitnesses sufficiently establish that, first, at the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was shot from behind while on top of a motorcycle; and second, appellant consciously adopted the particular means of attack, as he was at the crime scene prior to the attack, armed and waiting for the victim to pass by.
	GR No. 146271 2003-05-29	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO TINAMPAY PUNO, J.
A: Aside from the 22nd March 1996, I still saw him on the 24th or March 26 in the station. Q: Where was he placed in the station? A: Still living outside. Q: In effect, you are saying that there was no physical restraint of this person? A: None, ma'am."[26] Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of moral damages is increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and of exemplary damages from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence.[27] We likewise award the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the insufficiency of evidence of the expenses incurred by the victim's heirs for the victim's wake and burial.[28]
	GR No. 141518 2003-04-29	PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[44] As testified to by the widow of the deceased, the death of her husband brought grief and emotional suffering to their family.[45] Hence, they are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[46] Likewise, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the deceased justifies the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[47]

PEOPLE v. EXPEDITO ALFON