Lawyerly

GR No. 194129

2015-06-15

SERENO, C.J.

With respect to other compensatory damages, the Court in People v. Agudez[43] declared that competent evidence must likewise be presented to support the claim for those damages. In this case, the heirs of Mario de Luna claimed that they spent P2,577 for hospital expense and P300 for funeral expenses. However, when actual damages substantiated by receipts presented during trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount, is justified.[44]

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

The circumstance of evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. [37] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. [38] From the time the group met at the landing field at around 6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and discussed the possibility of killing anyone who stands on their way, up to the time they took Sulpacio away from the Estrellas' house and eventually killed him thereafter at around past 3:00 a.m., more than eight hours had elapsed - sufficient for the appellants to reflect on the consequences of their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if they wished to. Instead, appellants evidently clung to their determination and went ahead with their nefarious plan.

GR No. 189981

2011-03-09

PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO

VELASCO JR., J.

We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality."[12] As We have reiterated in the recent People v. Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses.[13] This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial.[14] Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.

GR No. 188353

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL

VELASCO JR., J.

In rejecting Leozar's contention that there was no treachery and in affirming the factual findings of the RTC, the appellate court held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of treachery as enumerated in People v. Aguila[17] and People v. Recepcion.[18] Moreover, citing People v. Agudez,[19] it ratiocinated that the use of the samurai with a 24-inch blade which inflicted the fatal wound and the location of the wound at the neck of Vincent demonstrated the deliberate and treacherous nature of the assault.

GR No. 175978

2009-02-12

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA

BRION, J.

We likewise award loss of earning capacity to the victim's heirs. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence, provided testimony exists that the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that no documentary evidence is usually available in the victim's line of work; or (2) employed as a daily wage worker, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[59] Given Alicia's testimony that her husband was a tricycle driver earning P200.00 a day, we hold that the heirs are entitled to an award representing the loss of the victim's earning capacity computed under the following formula:Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 less the age of the victim at the time of death) x (Gross Annual Income less the Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses)

GR No. 176609

2008-12-18

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. As an exception, damages may be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, provided that there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[55] In the case under consideration, no documentary evidence was adduced to support Paradero's claim for loss of earning capacity. Nonetheless, Paradero testified that she derived her income from operating a small sari-sari store, which she also owned. She also stated that she earned less than P50.00 a day from selling goods in her sari-sari store.[56] It is a fact and commonly recognized in our country that owners or operators of small sari-sari store, such as Paradero, do not issue official receipts since the quantity of the items being sold is minimal and these are sold cheap. Thus, Paradero is entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. As to its proper amount, we agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that Paradero is entitled to P9,000.00. Records[57] show that Paradero underwent treatment and medication, which incapacitated her from working in her store for a period of 6 months. Hence, the computation is P50.00 multiplied by 180 days or 6 months. Consequently, the amount which she could have earned during the said period was P9,000.00.

GR No. 178198

2008-12-10

PEOPLE v. EVELYN BOHOL Y TALAOGAN

NACHURA, J.

While it is true that appellant did not directly participate in shooting Steven, nevertheless, evidence clearly shows that she was part of the conspiracy to commit the crime. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[42] It must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. However, direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be established through the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of a felony that all the accused aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another for the attainment of the same objective; and that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[43]

GR No. 173282

2008-03-04

JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Information likewise alleged the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation, however, may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.[62] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the killing.

GR NO. 157057

2007-06-26

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Anent the award of P6,000.00 as damages, the Court notes that the receipts showing the expenses incurred during Crisaldo's hospitalization amounted only to P853.50.[32] As a general rule, a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33] Only substantiated and proven expenses will be recognized in court. Nonetheless, in lieu of actual damages, the Court grants temperate damages of P6,000.00, as it cannot be denied that Crisaldo incurred expenses during his three-week stay in the provincial hospital, although the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty.[34]

GR No. 167683

2007-06-08

SERGIO BENINSIG v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.[15] Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that he had indeed acted in self-defense in stabbing Romeo. This issue involves a question of fact properly evaluated by the trial court.[16] Unless the records show that certain facts have been overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case, this Court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.[17] After a thorough review of the records, we do not find any justification to modify the lower court's findings.

GR NO. 171449

2006-10-23

PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Information in Criminal Case no. 97-13706 likewise alleged the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.[40] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the killing.

GR NO. 159058

2006-05-03

PEOPLE v. RONAN P. DULANAS

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellant's assertion that Maria was motivated by vengeance against him because all the criminal cases Michael had filed against him were dismissed does not hold water. As we have held repeatedly, it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprits lest the guilty go unpunished.[51] The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence, and blame one who is innocent of the crime. Absent any showing that the principal witness was motivated by improper motives, the presumption is that she was not so moved.

GR NO. 163181

2005-10-19

BONIFACIO L. CAÑAL v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The award of P2,000.00 as compensatory damages should be deleted for lack of factual basis. To be entitled to actual and compensatory damages, there must be competent proof constituting evidence of the actual amount thereof.[22]

GR NO. 163351

2005-06-21

ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

With respect to other compensatory damages,[18] the Court in People v. Agudez[19] declared that competent evidence must likewise be presented to support the claim for such damages. In the case at bar, the father of So claimed that he spent P87,200[20] for the wake and burial of his son but all he was able to support with receipts were the payment to the funeral parlor of P20,000 and the cost of the burial site of P53,000.[21]

	GR No. 194129 2015-06-15	PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
With respect to other compensatory damages, the Court in People v. Agudez[43] declared that competent evidence must likewise be presented to support the claim for those damages. In this case, the heirs of Mario de Luna claimed that they spent P2,577 for hospital expense and P300 for funeral expenses. However, when actual damages substantiated by receipts presented during trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount, is justified.[44]
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
The circumstance of evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. [37] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. [38] From the time the group met at the landing field at around 6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and discussed the possibility of killing anyone who stands on their way, up to the time they took Sulpacio away from the Estrellas' house and eventually killed him thereafter at around past 3:00 a.m., more than eight hours had elapsed - sufficient for the appellants to reflect on the consequences of their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if they wished to. Instead, appellants evidently clung to their determination and went ahead with their nefarious plan.
	GR No. 189981 2011-03-09	PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO VELASCO JR., J.
We have held time and again that "the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality."[12] As We have reiterated in the recent People v. Combate, where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses.[13] This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial.[14] Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.
	GR No. 188353 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL VELASCO JR., J.
In rejecting Leozar's contention that there was no treachery and in affirming the factual findings of the RTC, the appellate court held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of treachery as enumerated in People v. Aguila[17] and People v. Recepcion.[18] Moreover, citing People v. Agudez,[19] it ratiocinated that the use of the samurai with a 24-inch blade which inflicted the fatal wound and the location of the wound at the neck of Vincent demonstrated the deliberate and treacherous nature of the assault.
	GR No. 175978 2009-02-12	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA BRION, J.
We likewise award loss of earning capacity to the victim's heirs. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence, provided testimony exists that the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that no documentary evidence is usually available in the victim's line of work; or (2) employed as a daily wage worker, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[59] Given Alicia's testimony that her husband was a tricycle driver earning P200.00 a day, we hold that the heirs are entitled to an award representing the loss of the victim's earning capacity computed under the following formula:Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 less the age of the victim at the time of death) x (Gross Annual Income less the Reasonable and Necessary Living Expenses)
	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. As an exception, damages may be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, provided that there is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[55] In the case under consideration, no documentary evidence was adduced to support Paradero's claim for loss of earning capacity. Nonetheless, Paradero testified that she derived her income from operating a small sari-sari store, which she also owned. She also stated that she earned less than P50.00 a day from selling goods in her sari-sari store.[56] It is a fact and commonly recognized in our country that owners or operators of small sari-sari store, such as Paradero, do not issue official receipts since the quantity of the items being sold is minimal and these are sold cheap. Thus, Paradero is entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. As to its proper amount, we agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that Paradero is entitled to P9,000.00. Records[57] show that Paradero underwent treatment and medication, which incapacitated her from working in her store for a period of 6 months. Hence, the computation is P50.00 multiplied by 180 days or 6 months. Consequently, the amount which she could have earned during the said period was P9,000.00.
	GR No. 178198 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. EVELYN BOHOL Y TALAOGAN NACHURA, J.
While it is true that appellant did not directly participate in shooting Steven, nevertheless, evidence clearly shows that she was part of the conspiracy to commit the crime. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[42] It must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. However, direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be established through the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of a felony that all the accused aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another for the attainment of the same objective; and that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[43]
	GR No. 173282 2008-03-04	JOSE INGAL y SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Information likewise alleged the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation, however, may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.[62] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the killing.
	GR NO. 157057 2007-06-26	LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent the award of P6,000.00 as damages, the Court notes that the receipts showing the expenses incurred during Crisaldo's hospitalization amounted only to P853.50.[32] As a general rule, a party seeking the award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33] Only substantiated and proven expenses will be recognized in court. Nonetheless, in lieu of actual damages, the Court grants temperate damages of P6,000.00, as it cannot be denied that Crisaldo incurred expenses during his three-week stay in the provincial hospital, although the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty.[34]
	GR No. 167683 2007-06-08	SERGIO BENINSIG v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.[15] Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that he had indeed acted in self-defense in stabbing Romeo. This issue involves a question of fact properly evaluated by the trial court.[16] Unless the records show that certain facts have been overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case, this Court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.[17] After a thorough review of the records, we do not find any justification to modify the lower court's findings.
	GR NO. 171449 2006-10-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Information in Criminal Case no. 97-13706 likewise alleged the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.[40] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish that evident premeditation attended the killing.
	GR NO. 159058 2006-05-03	PEOPLE v. RONAN P. DULANAS QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's assertion that Maria was motivated by vengeance against him because all the criminal cases Michael had filed against him were dismissed does not hold water. As we have held repeatedly, it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to implicate persons other than the real culprits lest the guilty go unpunished.[51] The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence, and blame one who is innocent of the crime. Absent any showing that the principal witness was motivated by improper motives, the presumption is that she was not so moved.
	GR NO. 163181 2005-10-19	BONIFACIO L. CAÑAL v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The award of P2,000.00 as compensatory damages should be deleted for lack of factual basis. To be entitled to actual and compensatory damages, there must be competent proof constituting evidence of the actual amount thereof.[22]
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
With respect to other compensatory damages,[18] the Court in People v. Agudez[19] declared that competent evidence must likewise be presented to support the claim for such damages. In the case at bar, the father of So claimed that he spent P87,200[20] for the wake and burial of his son but all he was able to support with receipts were the payment to the funeral parlor of P20,000 and the cost of the burial site of P53,000.[21]

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG