Lawyerly

GR No. 196258

2015-09-28

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Net Earning Capacity = remaining life expectancy x Gross Annual - Living Expenses [2/3 (80 - age at death)] Income (GAI) (50% of GAI)[36] The RTC simply fixed the living expenses for Paceño's heirs at P180,000.00, but we re-compute strictly using the foregoing formula: 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. 189850

2014-09-22

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TORRES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The fact that appellant presented witnesses to corroborate his alibi deserves scant consideration. Their testimonies are viewed with skepticism due to the very nature of alibi the witnesses affirm.[35] Appellant can easily fabricate an alibi and ask relatives and friends to corroborate it.[36]

GR No. 175980

2012-02-15

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Here, Benny did not satisfactorily demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the night of its commission. While he denies being at the scene of the crime when it happened, he claims to be within a reasonably near area which is his residence in Barangay Pilaon.[50] The murder of Jesus occurred in Barangay Laygayon, which is more or less 3½ kilometers away from the place where Benny claimed he was in.[51] Benny testified that the distance between these two barangays can be covered in an hour's walk.[52] Thus, even if he traveled by foot to another barangay, it was still not too far away to render it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Furthermore, Benny's alibi is uncorroborated. "Courts may give credence to alibi only if there are credible eyewitnesses who can corroborate the alibi of accused."[53] In contrast, alibi becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification made by the witnesses for the prosecution, as in this case.[54]

GR No. 162987

2009-05-21

GUILLANG v. RODOLFO BEDANIA

CARPIO, J.

As to funeral and burial expenses, the court can only award such amount as are supported by proper receipts.[45] In this case, petitioners proved funeral and burial expenses of P55,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1082,[46] P65,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1146[47] and P15,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1064,[48] all issued by the Manila South Cemetery Association, Inc., aggregating P135,000. We reduce the trial court's award of funeral and burial expenses from P185,000 to P135,000.

GR No. 177564

2008-10-31

ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[33] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 176637

2008-10-06

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DELA TORRE

CARPIO, J.

The Court agrees. Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose.[10] In the present case, the acts of Dela Torre, Bisaya, and Amoroso clearly indicate a unity of action: (1) Dela Torre called AAA and brought her inside the jeep; (2) Bisaya and Amoroso were waiting inside the jeep; (3) Dela Torre kissed and touched AAA while Bisaya and Amoroso watched; (4) Dela Torre passed AAA to Bisaya; (5) Bisaya kissed and touched AAA while Dela Torre and Amoroso watched; (6) Bisaya passed AAA to Amoroso; and (7) Amoroso inserted his penis in AAA's vagina and kissed her while Dela Torre and Bisaya watched.

GR No. 180925

2008-08-20

PEOPLE v. JAIME DEL CASTILLO

TINGA, J,

Appellant claims that his non-flight is an indication of his innocence. We do not agree. Non-flight is not proof of innocence. The culprit of a crime may choose to remain within the area of the crime scene because he lives there and flight may only raise suspicions against him. No case law exists to support appellant's claim that his non-flight precludes the possibility that he is guilty of the crime. To accept the defense offered by appellant would allow people to commit a crime and avoid liability by simply choosing to stay in the crime scene afterwards.[30]

GR No. 127980

2007-12-19

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA

REYES, R.T., J.

Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[82] Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi.[83] Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that accused were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.[84] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused by the witnesses.[85]

GR NO. 172324

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant Nabong questions the award of P44,000.00 spent for the wake of the victim claiming that the prosecution did not present official receipts for said expenses. The mother of the victim testified that she expended the said amount for the wake of her daughter. Said expenses were reduced into writing and marked as Exh. "V". The defense did not object to this during the direct examination of the witness for the prosecution nor in the formal offer of evidence. Thus, the rule stating that "evidence not objected to is deemed admitted" finds application in the case under consideration.[29] For this reason, the trial court can take into account such evidence in arriving at the judgment.[30] Hence, the trial court's judgment ordering appellants to pay P44,000.00 for the expenses incurred during the wake is correct.

GR Nos. 121576-78

2000-06-16

BANCO DO BRASIL v. CA

DE LEON, JR., J.

Meanwhile, a certiorari petition[43] was filed by private respondent before public respondent Court of Appeals seeking to nullify the cease and desist Order dated April 5, 1991 issued by Judge Arsenio M. Gonong. Two (2) more separate petitions for certiorari were subsequently filed by private respondent. The second petition[44] sought to nullify the Order[45] dated June 26, 1992 setting aside the Deputy Sheriff's return dated April 1, 1991 as well as the certificate of sale issued by Deputy Sheriff Camañgon. The third petition[46] sought to nullify the Order dated October 5, 1992 of the Court of Tax Appeals directing the Commissioner of Customs to place Bureau of Customs and PNP officers and guards to secure the M/V Star Ace and its cargoes, make inventory of the goods stored in the premises as indicated to belong to the private respondent. Likewise challenged was the Order dated August 17, 1992 authorizing the sale of M/V Star Ace and its cargoes.

	GR No. 196258 2015-09-28	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO DANDANON Y ILIGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Net Earning Capacity = remaining life expectancy x Gross Annual - Living Expenses [2/3 (80 - age at death)] Income (GAI) (50% of GAI)[36] The RTC simply fixed the living expenses for Paceño's heirs at P180,000.00, but we re-compute strictly using the foregoing formula: 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. 189850 2014-09-22	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO TORRES DEL CASTILLO, J.
The fact that appellant presented witnesses to corroborate his alibi deserves scant consideration. Their testimonies are viewed with skepticism due to the very nature of alibi the witnesses affirm.[35] Appellant can easily fabricate an alibi and ask relatives and friends to corroborate it.[36]
	GR No. 175980 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CABRILLAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, Benny did not satisfactorily demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the night of its commission. While he denies being at the scene of the crime when it happened, he claims to be within a reasonably near area which is his residence in Barangay Pilaon.[50] The murder of Jesus occurred in Barangay Laygayon, which is more or less 3½ kilometers away from the place where Benny claimed he was in.[51] Benny testified that the distance between these two barangays can be covered in an hour's walk.[52] Thus, even if he traveled by foot to another barangay, it was still not too far away to render it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Furthermore, Benny's alibi is uncorroborated. "Courts may give credence to alibi only if there are credible eyewitnesses who can corroborate the alibi of accused."[53] In contrast, alibi becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification made by the witnesses for the prosecution, as in this case.[54]
	GR No. 162987 2009-05-21	GUILLANG v. RODOLFO BEDANIA CARPIO, J.
As to funeral and burial expenses, the court can only award such amount as are supported by proper receipts.[45] In this case, petitioners proved funeral and burial expenses of P55,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1082,[46] P65,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1146[47] and P15,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1064,[48] all issued by the Manila South Cemetery Association, Inc., aggregating P135,000. We reduce the trial court's award of funeral and burial expenses from P185,000 to P135,000.
	GR No. 177564 2008-10-31	ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[33] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 176637 2008-10-06	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DELA TORRE CARPIO, J.
The Court agrees. Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose.[10] In the present case, the acts of Dela Torre, Bisaya, and Amoroso clearly indicate a unity of action: (1) Dela Torre called AAA and brought her inside the jeep; (2) Bisaya and Amoroso were waiting inside the jeep; (3) Dela Torre kissed and touched AAA while Bisaya and Amoroso watched; (4) Dela Torre passed AAA to Bisaya; (5) Bisaya kissed and touched AAA while Dela Torre and Amoroso watched; (6) Bisaya passed AAA to Amoroso; and (7) Amoroso inserted his penis in AAA's vagina and kissed her while Dela Torre and Bisaya watched.
	GR No. 180925 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. JAIME DEL CASTILLO TINGA, J,
Appellant claims that his non-flight is an indication of his innocence. We do not agree. Non-flight is not proof of innocence. The culprit of a crime may choose to remain within the area of the crime scene because he lives there and flight may only raise suspicions against him. No case law exists to support appellant's claim that his non-flight precludes the possibility that he is guilty of the crime. To accept the defense offered by appellant would allow people to commit a crime and avoid liability by simply choosing to stay in the crime scene afterwards.[30]
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[82] Alibi is an inherently weak defense and courts must receive it with caution because one can easily fabricate an alibi.[83] Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that accused were at the scene of the crime and were the victim's assailants. As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail.[84] Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused by the witnesses.[85]
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant Nabong questions the award of P44,000.00 spent for the wake of the victim claiming that the prosecution did not present official receipts for said expenses. The mother of the victim testified that she expended the said amount for the wake of her daughter. Said expenses were reduced into writing and marked as Exh. "V". The defense did not object to this during the direct examination of the witness for the prosecution nor in the formal offer of evidence. Thus, the rule stating that "evidence not objected to is deemed admitted" finds application in the case under consideration.[29] For this reason, the trial court can take into account such evidence in arriving at the judgment.[30] Hence, the trial court's judgment ordering appellants to pay P44,000.00 for the expenses incurred during the wake is correct.
	GR Nos. 121576-78 2000-06-16	BANCO DO BRASIL v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
Meanwhile, a certiorari petition[43] was filed by private respondent before public respondent Court of Appeals seeking to nullify the cease and desist Order dated April 5, 1991 issued by Judge Arsenio M. Gonong. Two (2) more separate petitions for certiorari were subsequently filed by private respondent. The second petition[44] sought to nullify the Order[45] dated June 26, 1992 setting aside the Deputy Sheriff's return dated April 1, 1991 as well as the certificate of sale issued by Deputy Sheriff Camañgon. The third petition[46] sought to nullify the Order dated October 5, 1992 of the Court of Tax Appeals directing the Commissioner of Customs to place Bureau of Customs and PNP officers and guards to secure the M/V Star Ace and its cargoes, make inventory of the goods stored in the premises as indicated to belong to the private respondent. Likewise challenged was the Order dated August 17, 1992 authorizing the sale of M/V Star Ace and its cargoes.

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR SUMALINOG