Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ADONES ABATAYO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 196258 2015-09-28	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO DANDANON Y ILIGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Net earning capacity = [2/3 (80-55)] x (P372,096.00) - [P372,096.00 x 50%] = [2/3(25)] x (P372,096.00) - (P186,048.00) = 16.67 x P186,048.00 = P3,101,420.16 Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide;[37] while moral damages is awarded for the mental anguish suffered by the heirs of the deceased.[38] Following the latest jurisprudence,[39] we increase the amounts awarded for civil indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, while sustaining the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.
	GR No. 184960 2011-08-24	PEOPLE v. CLEOFE BAROQUILLO Y VILLANUEVA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The testimonies of Cleofe's and Leonardo's witnesses who corroborated their alibis, did little to help their case as they were either relatives or close family friends of the accused. In fact, one of Leonardo's witnesses, Rowela, was caught in a lie when she testified that she saw Leonardo, still in their house on January 11, 2001 at 12:30 p.m., contrary to Leonardo's own testimony that he was at Dado's Lechon at that time to meet Lorenza for lunch. Not a single disinterested witness was presented by Cleofe or Leonardo to support their alibis. In People v. Abatayo,[53] this Court held that "alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by a relative or a close friend of the accused."[54]
	GR No. 178301 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO 'BOTONG' MALIBIRAN ACCUSED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Dinali-dali niyang ibinuhol ang alambre. That's her term.[39] (Emphasis Supplied) What sealed appellant's fate was that, as observed by the RTC, there were already outstanding warrants of arrest against appellant and Rolando as early as September 11, 1997; yet they evaded arrest and were only arrested on December 4, 1998.[40] It is well settled that flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. "The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion."[41] Appellant did not even proffer the slightest explanation for her flight.
	GR No. 179278 2008-03-28	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[37] It is an aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of the person to murder. Two essential elements are required in order that treachery can be appreciated: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution. Moreover, treachery must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial.
	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes that the RTC failed to award the heirs of Gonzalo, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death.[67] Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of commission of murder or homicide.[68]
	GR NO. 176158 2007-03-27	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABINAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of actual damages was without basis as the heirs of the victim failed to submit documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. In lieu thereof, temperate damages, in the amount of P25,000.00, must be awarded considering that it was established that Eleuterio's family incurred expenses for his hospitalization and burial.[17]
	GR NO. 174194 2007-03-20	PEOPLE v. EDWIN AUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals correctly deleted the amount of actual damages awarded by the trial court for lack of basis. No documentary evidence to prove the same was presented. However, temperate damages may be recovered under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code,[47] when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. In this case, the amount of P25,000.00 is reasonable, considering that it is undisputed that Pascual's family incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the victims.[48]
	GR NO. 169075 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN GARCIA, J.
We have carefully gone over the testimonies of YYY and ZZZ and we agree with the trial court's finding that despite rigorous cross-examination by no less than three defense counsels, their testimonies remained unshaken. The brothers were consistent and unwavering in their declaration that they saw appellants drag their sister XXX on the night of August 21, 1995. The trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of YYY and ZZZ, having had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanors and manner of testifying while on the witness' box. Well-entrenched is the rule that in the matter of credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings are accorded finality and should not be disturbed on appeal, unless the court has overlooked certain facts of weight and substance, which if considered, would alter the result of the case.[19] We find nothing on record that would compel us to deviate from such rule or to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of both YYY and ZZZ.
	GR NO. 173054 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ELMERCITO MANALO Y DULAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We cannot, however, agree with the trial court's finding that the appellant is guilty of murder. Treachery cannot be appreciated in this case for no prosecution witness saw how the assault started.[25] Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.[26] As Rosita testified, she only saw appellant and Hebreo come out of the victim's hut shortly after she heard the latter cried "aray ko, aray ko, aray ko." Where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established from mere suppositions, drawn solely from circumstances prior to the killing.[27]