Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EFREN MATEO Y GARCIA

This case has been cited 399 times or more.

	GR No. 179940 2008-04-23	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2004.[13] With the filing thereof, the trial court directed the immediate transmittal of the entire records of the case to us.[14] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]
	GR No. 175600 2008-04-23	PEOPLE v. LEONEL PASAOL PALAC CARPIO MORALES, J.
On appeal to this Court, it, pursuant to People v. Mateo,[18] transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals where they were docketed as CA-G.R. C.R. H.C. No. 01278. Appellant faulted the trial court
	GR No. 176065 2008-04-22	PEOPLE v. RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Considering that he has been detained since [2 January 1999], he must be credited in the service of his sentence with the length of time that he has been detained; To indemnify [AAA], in the amount of P50,000.00; To pay [AAA] moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00; and To pay the costs of the suit.[31] The records of this case were originally transmitted before this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[32] the records were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 175604 2008-04-10	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR PEÑAFLORIDA TINGA, J,
Now going over the evidence adduced, the court is convinced that the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] committed the offense of illegal possession of 928 grams of marijuana, if not, of transporting it, as charged. This is so, because it appears undisputed that on June 7, 1994, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon police officers Vicente Competente and his four (4) other co-police officers apprehended the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] on the roadside at Nasulan, Huyon-huyon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur [,] then riding on his bicycle and placed on the still structure at its front, a thing wrapped in a newspaper and found to be 928 grams of marijuana. No ill-motive has been presented by the defense against the police officers Vicente Competente and companions by falsely testifying against the accused Salvador Peñaflorida, Jr. So, the conclusion is inevitable that the presumption that the police officers were in the regular performance of their duties apply. The confiscation of the marijuana subject of the instant case and the arrest of the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] by the said police officers being lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for the warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime, the same being incidental to the lawful arrest. Rightly so, because a person caught illegally possessing or transporting drugs is subject to the warrantless search. Besides, object in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.[13] In view of the penalty imposed, the case was directly appealed to this Court on automatic review. Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo,[14] however, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction on 31 July 2006.
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
SO ORDERED.[20] Conformably with the pronouncement in People v. Mateo[21] providing for an intermediate review by the CA of cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court issued a Resolution dated September 21, 2004,[22] transferring the case to the appellate court for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 172091 2008-03-31	PEOPLE v. MOISES OLIVA ORBITA VELASCO JR., J.
Due to the penalty imposed, the case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review and was originally docketed as G.R. No. 158777. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[11] this Court, in its Resolution dated April 26, 2005, transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review, and the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01302.
	GR No. 179278 2008-03-28	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 6 November 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal.[24] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. This Court, however, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review, conformably to the ruling in People v. Mateo.[25]
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 22 November 2005, we issued a Resolution remanding the instant case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[36] On 30 June 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the Decision of the RTC. Thus:Thus, after finding that the trial court's conclusions are supported by the evidence presented and in full accord with existing law and jurisprudence, We find no reason to set it aside.
	GR No. 180920 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO Z. ANTONIO CORONA, J.
People v. Mateo.[4]
	GR No. 177566 2008-03-26	PEOPLE v. ROSALINDA TRAPAGO TAN TINGA, J,
The records of this case were originally elevated to this Court for automatic review. Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo[17] however, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
	GR No. 172868 2008-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO AGUILAR CARPIO MORALES, J.
Following People v. Mateo,[9] the Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 11 February 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking that the penalty imposed on petitioner be modified to reclusion perpetua as prescribed by law.[30] On 12 February 1999, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.[31] In an Order[32] dated 9 March 1999, the trial court, finding the motion to be meritorious, modified its decision and sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Consequently, it forwarded the records of the case to this Court. Pursuant, however, to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[33] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 177756 2008-03-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR NIETO y CABALSE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
CRIM. CASE NO. U-10587, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify AAA the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay another sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.[26] The records of this case were originally transmitted before this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[27] the records were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo.[32]
	GR No. 177572 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. JUANITO DELA CRUZ Y RIVERA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In view of the death penalty it imposed on appellant in Criminal Cases No. 115031-H and 115032-H, the RTC forwarded the records of the cases to us for automatic review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[19] we remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals for disposition. On 26 October 2006, the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the RTC decision. It held that appellant is liable only for simple rape and not qualified rape in Criminal Cases No. 115031-H and No. 115032-H because the qualifying circumstance of AAA's minority was not duly proven by the prosecution. Thus:
	GR No. 179189 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM TINGA, J,
Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[25] appellant's appeal by way of automatic review was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Finding no sufficient basis to disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court, the appellate court, on 30 November 2006, rendered its decision affirming appellant's conviction but modifying the penalty and damages imposed. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
	GR No. 177294 2008-02-19	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[28] the records of the present case were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR No. 169245 2008-02-15	PEOPLE v. NELSON ABON Y NOVIDO VELASCO JR., J.
Due to the penalty imposed, the case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review and was originally docketed as G.R. No. 135056. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[13] this Court, in its September 14, 2004 Resolution, transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
	GR No. 169877 2008-02-14	PEOPLE v. AMADOR SEGOBRE y QUIJANO QUISUMBING, J.
SO ORDERED.[8] Following People v. Mateo,[9] the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for review. [10]
	GR No. 175940 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO TINGA, J,
An appeal was directed to this Court. However, in a Resolution[19]dated 20 February 2006, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals in light of our pronouncement in People v. Mateo.[20]
	GR No. 178066 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ZAMORAGA TINGA, J,
The case was directly appealed to the Court pursuant to Section 3 and Section 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124 and Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[21] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review per Resolution[22] dated 20 September 2004. However, finding no sufficient basis to overturn the lower court, the Court of Appeals, on 26 January 2007, rendered the assailed decision affirming the findings and conclusion of the court a quo but modifying the award of damages as per recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), thus:FOR THE REASONS STATED, the assailed joint Decision dated 16 August 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte so far as it held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that he shall pay the victim, [AAA,] P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each and every count of rape. Costs against appellant.
	GR No. 175332 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. DAMASO GANDIA y CASTRO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[17] this Court, by Resolution of September 15, 2004,[18] referred the case with respect to appellants Olleres, Gonzales and Calaripio to the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 172069 2008-01-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO S. MARTIN CORONA, J.
The case was forwarded to this Court on automatic review but we referred it to the CA in accordance with People v.Mateo.[18] The CA affirmed the RTC decision:
	GR No. 177565 2008-01-28	PEOPLE v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA NACHURA, J.
On direct appeal to this Court in G.R. Nos. 162634-83, we transferred the cases to the appellate court for intermediate review[17] following the doctrine in People v. Mateo.[18]
	GR No. 174058 2007-12-27	PEOPLE v. CARMELITO LAURENTE CAPWA VELASCO JR., J.
Due to the penalty imposed, the case was forwarded to this Court for automatic review and was originally docketed as G.R. No. 149709. However, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo,[12] this Court, in its September 7, 2004 Resolution, transferred this case to the CA for intermediate review.
	GR No. 172967 2007-12-19	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER AVILES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Aviles appealed to this Court. Conformably with this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[8] we resolved[9] to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 169875 2007-12-18	PEOPLE v. DANILO JOCSON Y BAUTISTA PUNO, CJ.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5] This Court, however, referred the case to the Court of Appeals in conformity with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[6]
	GR NO. 173793 2007-12-04	vs. v. CONRADO M. GLINO REYES, R.T., J.
Accused-appellant elevated his conviction to the CA by way of an intermediate review, conformably with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[34] On May 26, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment in full. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 20 June 2005, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Aggrieved, appellants elevated the instant case directly to this Court for review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[31] we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for disposition. On 29 March 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC decision,[32] thus:
	GR NO. 177744 2007-11-23	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO DOMINGO NACHURA, J.
The case was initially elevated to this Court but the same was transferred to the CA pursuant to the Court's directive in People v. Mateo.[13]
	GR No. 177150 2007-11-22	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the event, however, that the accused shall be pardoned by the President, he is, however, forever barred from showing himself to the private complainant. He must not approach the private complainant; he shall never contact the private complainant directly or indirectly either by letters, telephone, cellphone or send text messages or with the use of any electrical devices.[22] In view of the penalty imposed upon appellant, the RTC elevated the records of the case directly to the Court of Appeals for review pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[23]
	GR No. 172607 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. RUFINO UMANITO TINGA, J,
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[14] appellant's appeal before us was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006, the appellate court affirmed the challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a credible witness, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the inconsistencies in her statements were too trivial and inconsequential to impair the credibility of her testimony.[15]
	GR No. 168650 2007-10-26	PEOPLE v. JOSE TUAZON NACHURA, J.
The records of this case were originally forwarded to this Court by the RTC in view of the notice of appeal filed by the appellant. After the parties submitted their respective briefs, conformably with our Decision in People v. Mateo,[15] we transferred this case and its records to the Court of Appeals (CA) in a Resolution[16] dated August 30, 2004 for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 174775 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY CARPIO, J.
The records of the cases were forwarded to this Court for automatic review and docketed as G.R. Nos. 148880-82. In a Resolution dated 1 December 2004,[7] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Decision of this Court in People v. Mateo.[8] In its 30 June 2006 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision.
	GR No. 175324 2007-10-10	PEOPLE v. EDISON MIRA TINGA, J,
Appellant directly appealed his conviction to this Court. In a Resolution[15] dated 14 December 2004, the Court resolved to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Mateo.[16]
	GR No. 175480 2007-10-02	PEOPLE v. CONRADO BARANGAN Y GENERALAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[E]ven assuming arguendo that the complainant had lovers and was no longer a virgin, this gave no license to the accused to force himself on a defenseless girl. The victim who was only fifteen years old was not shown to possess the shrewdness and callousness to concoct a story of rape. AAA appeared to be a simple country girl who would not endure physical examination and public trial if her story were untrue. She had absolutely no motive to testify falsely against the accused. Her testimony is entitled to full faith and credence (citation omitted).[19] And in the end concluded that: It was satisfactorily established that the accused had carnal knowledge of his victim by means of force and intimidation and without the latter's consent.[20] On 2 May 2002, accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal[21] before the RTC. Conformably with People v. Mateo,[22] however, in a Resolution dated 20 September 2004,[23] we directed the transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.