Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184756 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN JUMAWID NACHURA, J.
The use of a deadly weapon, having been specifically averred in the Information and duly proven during the trial qualifies the rape committed by the appellant.[24] Under 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for qualified rape should be reclusion perpetua to death. However, since the prosecution failed to prove that appellant took advantage of the night or that such circumstance facilitated the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby imposed.[25]
	GR No. 177294 2008-02-19	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH DELA PAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Significantly, at the time that the appellant was punched by the brother of AAA when he was caught naked inside the comfort room with AAA, the appellant immediately asked for forgiveness. It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a plea for forgiveness by the appellant may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.[43] No person would ask for forgiveness unless he has committed some wrong, for to forgive means to absolve; to pardon; to cease to feel resentment against on account of a wrong committed; to give up a claim to requital or retribution from an offender.[44] Thus, the trial court did not commit an error when it disregarded the appellant's defense of denial.
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. The elements of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A are: (1) the offender is a man who had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation upon her; or she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or she is under 12 years of age or is demented.[22]
	GR NO. 169873 2007-06-08	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO ASTROLOGO Y DE DIOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The defense of denial is an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[23] It is merely a negative and self-serving allegation that cannot be given any weight on the scale of justice.[24] And although denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, mere bare assertions to this effect cannot overcome the positive, straightforward, unequivocal and categorical testimony of the victim. It is an established rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially so when it comes from a credible witness.[25] Likewise, it is hornbook doctrine that such positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim-daughter, identifying her own father as the one who sexually attacked her, prevails over his bare denial because no daughter will charge a father, especially a good father, with rape. The charge is not only embarrassing to the victim and the family. It means death to the head of the family. A father so charged cannot exculpate himself by a bare-bone denial.[26]
	GR NO. 169246 2007-01-26	PEOPLE v. NICOLAS GUZMAN Y BOCBOSILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On another point, we agree with the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum of P35,470.00 as actual damages should be reduced to P25,670.00 since the receipts on record amounts only to P25,670.00.[45] It is well-settled that only expenses supported by receipts will be allowed for actual damages.[46] Furthermore, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]
	GR NO. 171017 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On another point, we agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals as regards the penalty imposed and damages awarded. However, in addition to these damages, exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of Conrado since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established by the prosecution.[47] If a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[48] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[49]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded in this case since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established.[64]
	GR NO. 165483 2006-09-12	RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Criminal Case No. U-9610 for Homicide, we agree with both courts that the proper amount of civil indemnity is P50,000.00, and that the proper amount for moral damages is P50,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[70] However, based on the receipts for hospital, medicine, funeral and burial expenses on record, and upon computation of the same, the proper amount of actual damages should be P42,374.18, instead of P43,556.00. Actual damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded in this case since there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the same.[71] Although there may be exceptions to this rule,[72] none is availing in the present case. Nevertheless, since loss was actually established in this case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 may be awarded to the heirs of Melton Ferrer. Under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Moreover, exemplary damages should be awarded in this case since the presence of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was already established.[73] Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages for homicide is P25,000.00.[74]