Lawyerly

GR No. 178205

2009-07-27

NACHURA, J.

Given the circumstances surrounding the instant case, we agree with the CA that appellants cannot be convicted of Robbery with Homicide. Indeed, the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. And it is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed.[30] However, essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time.[31]

GR No. 168173

2008-12-24

PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES

BRION, J.

We have repeatedly held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the alleged crime. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[82]

GR No. 178545

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. LEO BARRIGA

TINGA, J.

However, in accordance with jurisprudence, the Court has to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[70] As explained in People v. Werba,[71] to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000.00 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.

GR No. 181594

2008-08-28

PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court notes that the RTC awarded the heirs of the victim actual damages in the amount of P22,701.00. The Court of Appeals modified the amount to P16,892.00 for the reason that only such amount was supported by the "best obtainable receipts for the expenses during the wake of the victim x x x." But considering that the heirs of the victim have already been awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, we delete the amount of P16,892.00 representing actual damages. As we have ruled in People v. Werba,[52] citing People v. Villanueva,[53] in instances where actual expenses amounting to less than P25,000.00 are proved during trial, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[54]

GR No. 172752

2008-06-18

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON

REYES, R.T., J.

However, consistent with Our ruling in People v. Werba,[61] which affirmed the case of People v. Villanueva,[62] We award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. As well stated in said cases, to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000 temperate damages.[63]

GR NO. 155153

2007-07-24

SPO1 LORETO NERPIO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO, JR., J.

On the other hand, petitioner offers alibi and denial as his defense. It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.[23] In considering the physical distance of the accused from the crime scene, the Court has rejected alibi where the two places are in the same municipality,[24] where they are easily accessible by any mode of public transportation,[25] where the distance can be covered by walking for thirty minutes or by riding a vehicle for twenty minutes,[26] or even when it could be reached after approximately an hour.[27]

GR NO. 173479

2007-07-12

PEOPLE v. JUAN CABBAB

GARCIA, J.

Conformably with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan are each entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,[23] to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[24] and to exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00.[25]

GR NO. 172184

2007-07-10

NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Upon cross-examination, she [Alona] declared that she executed an affidavit in connection with this case. However, there are some facts which she deliberately omitted in her affidavit. The fact that Nestor passed by their house and forewarned her mother to stop her father otherwise he would crush his head, and the fact that when accused passed by, she said "Good evening" but the accused did not answer, were not mentioned in her affidavit because during the preliminary examination, and when her affidavit was taken, she was still in the state of sorrow and her mindset was still unstable.[42] (Emphasis ours.) The fact that Josefina and Alona were the wife and daughter, respectively, of Teodoro, makes their testimonies more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[43]

GR NO. 158053

2007-06-21

EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Anent actual damages, the Court resolves to delete the same and in lieu thereof imposes temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This is consistent with the ruling of the Court in People v. Werba,[69] citing People v. Villanueva[70] which held that in instances where actual expenses amounting to less than P25,000.00 are proved during the trial, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[71] In this case, Gonzalo's heirs were only able to present receipts amounting to P4,925.00.[72]

GR NO. 171017

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the testimony of Donald, it should be borne in mind that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not automatically impair the credibility of said witness, where no improper motive can be ascribed to the latter for so testifying.[35] A witness' relationship to the victim of a crime, in fact, makes his testimony even more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[36] Donald has no improper motive to implicate appellant in the crime. As the younger brother of Conrado, his mere desire in testifying was to see to it that justice is served and the real killer of Conrado be punished.

GR NO. 169891

2006-11-02

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. ETHEL BRUNTY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done. To be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered, and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.[64] Respondents, however, failed to present evidence for such damages; hence, the award of actual damages cannot be sustained. However, as the heirs of Rhonda Brunty undeniably incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the latter, we deem it proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[65] This is in lieu of actual damages as it would be unfair for the victim's heirs to get nothing, despite the death of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot produce receipts.[66]

	GR No. 178205 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. LEO QUEMEGGEN NACHURA, J.
Given the circumstances surrounding the instant case, we agree with the CA that appellants cannot be convicted of Robbery with Homicide. Indeed, the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. And it is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed.[30] However, essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time.[31]
	GR No. 168173 2008-12-24	PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES BRION, J.
We have repeatedly held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the alleged crime. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[82]
	GR No. 178545 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. LEO BARRIGA TINGA, J.
However, in accordance with jurisprudence, the Court has to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[70] As explained in People v. Werba,[71] to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000.00 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.
	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court notes that the RTC awarded the heirs of the victim actual damages in the amount of P22,701.00. The Court of Appeals modified the amount to P16,892.00 for the reason that only such amount was supported by the "best obtainable receipts for the expenses during the wake of the victim x x x." But considering that the heirs of the victim have already been awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, we delete the amount of P16,892.00 representing actual damages. As we have ruled in People v. Werba,[52] citing People v. Villanueva,[53] in instances where actual expenses amounting to less than P25,000.00 are proved during trial, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[54]
	GR No. 172752 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON REYES, R.T., J.
However, consistent with Our ruling in People v. Werba,[61] which affirmed the case of People v. Villanueva,[62] We award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. As well stated in said cases, to rule otherwise would be anomalous and unfair because the victim's heirs who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of an amount less than P25,000 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would now be entitled to P25,000 temperate damages.[63]
	GR NO. 155153 2007-07-24	SPO1 LORETO NERPIO v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
On the other hand, petitioner offers alibi and denial as his defense. It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.[23] In considering the physical distance of the accused from the crime scene, the Court has rejected alibi where the two places are in the same municipality,[24] where they are easily accessible by any mode of public transportation,[25] where the distance can be covered by walking for thirty minutes or by riding a vehicle for twenty minutes,[26] or even when it could be reached after approximately an hour.[27]
	GR NO. 173479 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. JUAN CABBAB GARCIA, J.
Conformably with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan are each entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,[23] to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[24] and to exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00.[25]
	GR NO. 172184 2007-07-10	NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Upon cross-examination, she [Alona] declared that she executed an affidavit in connection with this case. However, there are some facts which she deliberately omitted in her affidavit. The fact that Nestor passed by their house and forewarned her mother to stop her father otherwise he would crush his head, and the fact that when accused passed by, she said "Good evening" but the accused did not answer, were not mentioned in her affidavit because during the preliminary examination, and when her affidavit was taken, she was still in the state of sorrow and her mindset was still unstable.[42] (Emphasis ours.) The fact that Josefina and Alona were the wife and daughter, respectively, of Teodoro, makes their testimonies more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[43]
	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent actual damages, the Court resolves to delete the same and in lieu thereof imposes temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. This is consistent with the ruling of the Court in People v. Werba,[69] citing People v. Villanueva[70] which held that in instances where actual expenses amounting to less than P25,000.00 are proved during the trial, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[71] In this case, Gonzalo's heirs were only able to present receipts amounting to P4,925.00.[72]
	GR NO. 171017 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO AGUILA Y ATIENZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the testimony of Donald, it should be borne in mind that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not automatically impair the credibility of said witness, where no improper motive can be ascribed to the latter for so testifying.[35] A witness' relationship to the victim of a crime, in fact, makes his testimony even more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.[36] Donald has no improper motive to implicate appellant in the crime. As the younger brother of Conrado, his mere desire in testifying was to see to it that justice is served and the real killer of Conrado be punished.
	GR NO. 169891 2006-11-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. ETHEL BRUNTY CALLEJO, SR., J.
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done. To be recoverable, they must be duly proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered, and on evidence of the actual amount thereof.[64] Respondents, however, failed to present evidence for such damages; hence, the award of actual damages cannot be sustained. However, as the heirs of Rhonda Brunty undeniably incurred expenses for the wake and burial of the latter, we deem it proper to award temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[65] This is in lieu of actual damages as it would be unfair for the victim's heirs to get nothing, despite the death of their kin, for the reason alone that they cannot produce receipts.[66]

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR WERBA Y RICAFORT