Lawyerly

GR No. 174477

2009-10-02

BRION, J.

In addition, the presence of these multiple stab and hack wounds shows that two weapons were used in assaulting the victim, belying another claim the appellant made - that he was alone (wielding only a guinunting) when he fought Restituto. The number and severity of these wounds in fact confirm Edgar's testimony that two persons - the appellant and Bercasio - attacked and assaulted Restituto, and likewise validate Dr. Beltran's statement that more than one person could have inflicted the wounds. In People v. Carriaga,[87] we held that self-defense is negated where the nature of the victim's injuries undeniably shows that he was attacked by several assailants armed with weapons of various kinds that were not wielded by the accused alone.

GR No. 181084

2009-06-16

PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS

PUNO, C.J.

In People v. Cariaga,[105] the total amount of indemnity and damages due to the heirs of the victim amounted to P601,000.00. The sole accomplice was ordered to pay P101,000.00 which is roughly one-sixth (1/6) of the entire civil indemnity, while the two principals were ordered to pay the rest of the indemnity and damages amounting to P500,000.00.

GR NO. 143404

2005-06-08

PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may be established by acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be logically inferred the existence of a common purpose to commit the same.[47] The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same quantum of evidence as the felony charged itself. Indeed, proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy.[48] It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring out the victim's death.[49] Once conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury.[50] If conspiracy is proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. The act of one is the act of all.

GR No. 131117

2004-06-15

PEOPLE v. NELSON CARIÑO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[44] It need not be established by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design.[45] Proof of previous engagement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it would be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another.[46]

GR No. 156786

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Besides, the trial court also found that when Antonio was already down, Vicente asked, "Are you still alive?" After taunting him, Vicente delivered the coup de grace by thrusting his bolo into his sprawled body. A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased.[13]

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength alleged in the Information is absorbed by said circumstance.[46]

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Although appellants did not assail the amount awarded by the trial court, the same should be modified in accordance with current jurisprudence. In the case of People vs. Carriaga, [55] we provided for the formula in determining a person's net earning capacity as follows:

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The heirs of the victims are entitled to exemplary damages. The presence of the aggravating circumstances of band and uninhabited place was proven in the present case as earlier discussed. While these circumstances could not aggravate the crime because they were not specifically alleged in the Informations in violation of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the presence of these aggravating circumstances entitles the heirs of Dominador and Mamerto to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code[62] and with prevailing jurisprudence.[63]

GR No. 133541

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. RICKY QUIMZON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Hence, we uphold the trial court's judgment declaring appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The attendant circumstance of treachery qualified the killing to murder as defined under paragraph 1, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength alleged in the Information is absorbed by said circumstance.[44]

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Since treachery attended the killing of Celestino Buoy, the trial court correctly considered abuse of superior strength, which is also alleged in the Information, as already absorbed by said circumstance.[79]

	GR No. 174477 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. RENATO BRACIA BRION, J.
In addition, the presence of these multiple stab and hack wounds shows that two weapons were used in assaulting the victim, belying another claim the appellant made - that he was alone (wielding only a guinunting) when he fought Restituto. The number and severity of these wounds in fact confirm Edgar's testimony that two persons - the appellant and Bercasio - attacked and assaulted Restituto, and likewise validate Dr. Beltran's statement that more than one person could have inflicted the wounds. In People v. Carriaga,[87] we held that self-defense is negated where the nature of the victim's injuries undeniably shows that he was attacked by several assailants armed with weapons of various kinds that were not wielded by the accused alone.
	GR No. 181084 2009-06-16	PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS PUNO, C.J.
In People v. Cariaga,[105] the total amount of indemnity and damages due to the heirs of the victim amounted to P601,000.00. The sole accomplice was ordered to pay P101,000.00 which is roughly one-sixth (1/6) of the entire civil indemnity, while the two principals were ordered to pay the rest of the indemnity and damages amounting to P500,000.00.
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may be established by acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be logically inferred the existence of a common purpose to commit the same.[47] The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same quantum of evidence as the felony charged itself. Indeed, proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy.[48] It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim; what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring out the victim's death.[49] Once conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury.[50] If conspiracy is proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. The act of one is the act of all.
	GR No. 131117 2004-06-15	PEOPLE v. NELSON CARIÑO CALLEJO, SR., J.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[44] It need not be established by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design.[45] Proof of previous engagement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it would be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another.[46]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Besides, the trial court also found that when Antonio was already down, Vicente asked, "Are you still alive?" After taunting him, Vicente delivered the coup de grace by thrusting his bolo into his sprawled body. A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased.[13]
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength alleged in the Information is absorbed by said circumstance.[46]
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Although appellants did not assail the amount awarded by the trial court, the same should be modified in accordance with current jurisprudence. In the case of People vs. Carriaga, [55] we provided for the formula in determining a person's net earning capacity as follows:
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The heirs of the victims are entitled to exemplary damages. The presence of the aggravating circumstances of band and uninhabited place was proven in the present case as earlier discussed. While these circumstances could not aggravate the crime because they were not specifically alleged in the Informations in violation of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the presence of these aggravating circumstances entitles the heirs of Dominador and Mamerto to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code[62] and with prevailing jurisprudence.[63]
	GR No. 133541 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. RICKY QUIMZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Hence, we uphold the trial court's judgment declaring appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The attendant circumstance of treachery qualified the killing to murder as defined under paragraph 1, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength alleged in the Information is absorbed by said circumstance.[44]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Since treachery attended the killing of Celestino Buoy, the trial court correctly considered abuse of superior strength, which is also alleged in the Information, as already absorbed by said circumstance.[79]

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA