Lawyerly

GR No. 198223

2015-02-18

HEIRS OF TIMBANG DAROMIMBANG DIMAAMPAO v. ATTY. ABDULLAH ALUG

PERALTA, J.

On February 15, 2005, petitioners Heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao represented by Cabib D. Alawi, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur, Marawi City, a Complaint[3] for declaration of deed of sale as a nullity, quieting of title and damages against respondents Abdullah Alug, Hadji Bogabong Balt and Heirs of Hadji Ali Pete Pangarungan, represented by Hadja Sittie Salima Pangarungan. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners pro indiviso and lawful possessors of a parcel of land located at Madaya, Marawi City with an area of 157,738 square meters covered by OCT No. RP-355 (subject lot), Homestead Patent No. 47201; that they acquired ownership and possession of the subject land and the improvements thereon by way of inheritance from their deceased grandmother, Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao (Timbang), who was the true and exclusive owner and lawful possessor of the subject lot; that Cota Dimaampao (Cota) and Timbang got married in accordance with the Muslim rites and the subject lot was among the dowries given by the former to the latter; that during the existence of their marriage, the spouses applied for registration and titling of the land and their homestead application was approved and was issued OCT No. RP-355 in their names; that sometime after the issuance of the said title, Cota and Timbang were divorced from each other, hence, Timbang and their two daughters continued possession and ownership of the subject land, while Cota contracted another marriage; that when Timbang died, her daughters succeeded her on the ownership and possession of the land until their deaths and were survived by herein petitioners.

GR No. 173822

2010-10-13

SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which offended party might make.[21] For treachery to be attendant, the means, method, or form of execution must be deliberated upon or consciously adopted by the offenders.[22] Moreover, treachery must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[23]

GR No. 178300

2009-03-17

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO REYES Y PAJE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The right of an accused to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.[69] Such right contemplates effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed.[70]

GR No. 177825

2008-10-24

PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Accused-appellant's argument deserves scant consideration. The recent case of People v. Sayaboc[23] reiterated the pronouncement in People v. Aquino[24] that even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure[25] does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. It is sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during trial.

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the accused.[38] The rationale for this rule is that when the accused moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence is negated.[39] An accused cannot be allowed to wager on the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience.[40] The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid the dilatory practice of filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence and, after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.[41] Thus, when the trial court disallowed the appellants to present evidence on their behalf, it properly applied Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Not even the gravity of the penalty for a particular offense can change this rule. As stressed by this Court:The filing of the demurrer to evidence without leave of court and its subsequent denial results in the submission of the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence on record. Considering that the governing rules on demurrer to evidence is a fundamental component of criminal procedure, respondent judge had the obligation to observe the same, regardless of the gravity of the offense charged. It is not for him to grant concessions to the accused who failed to obtain prior leave of court. The rule is clear that upon the denial of the demurrer to evidence in this case, the accused, who failed to ask for leave of court, shall waive the right to present evidence in his behalf.[42]

GR No. 179189

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM

TINGA, J,

We uphold the Court of Appeals in affirming appellant's contention that it was erroneous for the RTC to impose the death penalty on him. For failure of the prosecution to properly allege in the information the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could not be taken into consideration and appellant could only be found guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[48] These qualifying circumstances, even if proved at the trial and specifically alleged in AAA's sworn affidavit, cannot be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information specify the qualifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given retroactive effect.[49]

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

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.[44]

GR No. 133541

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. RICKY QUIMZON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Erlinda Casiong testified that her son was single when he died;[57] that she felt sad when her son was killed.[58] We find her testimony sufficient to sustain the trial court's award of moral damages but we reduce the amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[59]

GR No. 141087

2004-03-31

PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As to the award by the trial court of P75,000.00 as moral damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[34] the crime committed being homicide, the amount must be reduced to P50,000.00.

GR Nos. 147674-75

2004-03-17

PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[64] Treachery was correctly appreciated in the killing of Demetrio Jr. Anacito was lying in wait for his victim in a dark place at the national highway. When Demetrio Jr. reached the "lover's lane," Anacito emerged from his hiding place and stabbed the former several times.

	GR No. 198223 2015-02-18	HEIRS OF TIMBANG DAROMIMBANG DIMAAMPAO v. ATTY. ABDULLAH ALUG PERALTA, J.
On February 15, 2005, petitioners Heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao represented by Cabib D. Alawi, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur, Marawi City, a Complaint[3] for declaration of deed of sale as a nullity, quieting of title and damages against respondents Abdullah Alug, Hadji Bogabong Balt and Heirs of Hadji Ali Pete Pangarungan, represented by Hadja Sittie Salima Pangarungan. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners pro indiviso and lawful possessors of a parcel of land located at Madaya, Marawi City with an area of 157,738 square meters covered by OCT No. RP-355 (subject lot), Homestead Patent No. 47201; that they acquired ownership and possession of the subject land and the improvements thereon by way of inheritance from their deceased grandmother, Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao (Timbang), who was the true and exclusive owner and lawful possessor of the subject lot; that Cota Dimaampao (Cota) and Timbang got married in accordance with the Muslim rites and the subject lot was among the dowries given by the former to the latter; that during the existence of their marriage, the spouses applied for registration and titling of the land and their homestead application was approved and was issued OCT No. RP-355 in their names; that sometime after the issuance of the said title, Cota and Timbang were divorced from each other, hence, Timbang and their two daughters continued possession and ownership of the subject land, while Cota contracted another marriage; that when Timbang died, her daughters succeeded her on the ownership and possession of the land until their deaths and were survived by herein petitioners.
	GR No. 173822 2010-10-13	SALVADOR ATIZADO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which offended party might make.[21] For treachery to be attendant, the means, method, or form of execution must be deliberated upon or consciously adopted by the offenders.[22] Moreover, treachery must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[23]
	GR No. 178300 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO REYES Y PAJE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The right of an accused to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.[69] Such right contemplates effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed.[70]
	GR No. 177825 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Accused-appellant's argument deserves scant consideration. The recent case of People v. Sayaboc[23] reiterated the pronouncement in People v. Aquino[24] that even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure[25] does not require the use of such words to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. It is sufficient that the qualifying circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during trial.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave of court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the accused.[38] The rationale for this rule is that when the accused moves for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence is negated.[39] An accused cannot be allowed to wager on the outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience.[40] The purpose behind the rule is also to avoid the dilatory practice of filing motions for dismissal as a demurrer to the evidence and, after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.[41] Thus, when the trial court disallowed the appellants to present evidence on their behalf, it properly applied Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Not even the gravity of the penalty for a particular offense can change this rule. As stressed by this Court:The filing of the demurrer to evidence without leave of court and its subsequent denial results in the submission of the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence on record. Considering that the governing rules on demurrer to evidence is a fundamental component of criminal procedure, respondent judge had the obligation to observe the same, regardless of the gravity of the offense charged. It is not for him to grant concessions to the accused who failed to obtain prior leave of court. The rule is clear that upon the denial of the demurrer to evidence in this case, the accused, who failed to ask for leave of court, shall waive the right to present evidence in his behalf.[42]
	GR No. 179189 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO RESUMA y AGRAVANTE alias “GEROM TINGA, J,
We uphold the Court of Appeals in affirming appellant's contention that it was erroneous for the RTC to impose the death penalty on him. For failure of the prosecution to properly allege in the information the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship could not be taken into consideration and appellant could only be found guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[48] These qualifying circumstances, even if proved at the trial and specifically alleged in AAA's sworn affidavit, cannot be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information specify the qualifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given retroactive effect.[49]
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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.[44]
	GR No. 133541 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. RICKY QUIMZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Erlinda Casiong testified that her son was single when he died;[57] that she felt sad when her son was killed.[58] We find her testimony sufficient to sustain the trial court's award of moral damages but we reduce the amount of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.[59]
	GR No. 141087 2004-03-31	PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG CARPIO MORALES, J.
As to the award by the trial court of P75,000.00 as moral damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[34] the crime committed being homicide, the amount must be reduced to P50,000.00.
	GR Nos. 147674-75 2004-03-17	PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN DAVIDE JR., C.J.
witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[64] Treachery was correctly appreciated in the killing of Demetrio Jr. Anacito was lying in wait for his victim in a dark place at the national highway. When Demetrio Jr. reached the "lover's lane," Anacito emerged from his hiding place and stabbed the former several times.

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN SAYABOC Y SEGUBA