Lawyerly

GR No. 172752

2008-06-18

REYES, R.T., J.

Here, Bernabe was suddenly shot without any warning by appellant at a distance of about 3 to 4 meters. An unexpected and sudden attack, which renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness of the attack, constitutes alevosia.[54] Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[55]

GR NO. 168827

2007-04-13

BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[55] Unlawful aggression is a sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude.[56]

GR NO. 153794

2006-06-26

SERGIO MARZONIA v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

In contrast, Diosdado's testimony as eyewitness to the crime was found credible by both the trial and appellate courts. Indeed, Diosdado's testimony is credible. He remained steadfast on his account of the incident during cross-examination by defense counsel, and in answering questions from the trial court. He had no improper motive to pin Sergio for the crime, which is admitted by Sergio.[34] Diosdado's positive, clear and credible testimony suffices to convict the petitioner of homicide. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of the testimonies.[35]

GR No. 149538

2004-07-26

PEOPLE v. VINCENT HENRY CHUA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The Court did not find any motive for Manabat and Santos to pinpoint the accused as the culprit. There is no animosity nor bad blood between Manabat and Santos, on one hand, and the accused, on the other hand. In fact, Manabat and Santos are afraid of the accused because Vincent Henry Chua is a "siga" and "matapang" as per testimony of Rodelito Santos considering the fact that the family of the accused is the owner of the lot where the peryahan is located.[14] The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court. The well-settled rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts and circumstances which if considered warrants a revision or reversal of the outcome of the case.[15] We have reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.

GR No. 144343

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. RICSON PARRENO Y ATIDO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery against the appellants. The elements for treachery to be appreciated as qualifying circumstance are (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously adopted.[46] Even a frontal attack may be considered treacherous when sudden and unexpected, and employed on an unarmed victim who would not be in a position to repel the attack or to avoid it.[47] The essence of treachery is the swiftness and unexpectedness of the attack on the unarmed victim.[48]

GR No. 133440

2004-06-07

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO REFORMA Y PEDRIGAL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In denying having stabbed and killed the victim, the appellant thereby assails the credibility of Zenaida and Roger and the credibility and probative weight of their testimonies. However, the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of the said witnesses. It declared that "the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses are clear, positive, straightforward and devoid of signs of artificiality. No ill motive could be ascribed to them, even by herein accused Reforma, to falsely incriminate the accused."[13] The well-established rule is that, the trial court's calibration and assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as its findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the appellate court because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[14] Although there are exceptions, we find no justification, after our review of the records, to deviate from the findings of the trial court and its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.

GR No. 147196

2004-06-04

PEOPLE v. EDGAR DUMADAG Y CAGADAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Time and again, we have consistently ruled that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, as well as its conclusions on its findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[25] This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[26] In this case, the trial court gave credence and probative weight to the testimony of Jovy Baylin. After a careful review of the records of this case, we find no cogent reason to overrule the trial court's findings that the appellant stabbed the victim.

GR No. 118912

2004-05-28

PEOPLE v. QUINTIN CASTILLO Y MASANGKAY

AZCUNA, J.

At the time the crime was committed, the appropriate penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.[40] Considering that there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.[41] The penalty of reclusion perpetua is indivisible.[42] Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.

GR No. 148627

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ

PUNO, J.

At no time during the course of the trial did Cristeta's testimony regarding the complicity of appellant Danilo Ibañez ever change. From the onset, Cristeta had testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was one of the four men who threw objects at her house and demanded for her father to go down.[45] When she went out of their house, she saw the men making the commotion, and clearly identified appellant Danilo Ibañez among them. [46] Aided by the light of the moon and standing barely 2 meters away, she identified him and recognized his voice easily, as he was familiar to her. She knew him and the other three aggressors as neighbors who frequently came and ate at her house.[47] She unequivocally testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was the second man to hack her father after appellant Jenelito.[48] An eyewitness account, coupled with the fact of the victim's death, are sufficient proof of the guilt of the appellant beyond cavil of doubt, for the crime of murder.[49]

GR No. 139823

2004-03-12

PEOPLE v. ROWEN SAMPAGA Y LIMENOQUEN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages, and requires adequate proof thereof. For loss of income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income as well as proof of average expenses. The award for lost income refers to the net income of the deceased; that is, the total income less average expenses. No proof of the victim's average expenses were adduced in evidence; as such, there can be no reliable estimate of lost earnings.[14] Indeed, the award of the trial court was based merely on speculation and surmises.[15] Finally, the appellant is liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[16]

GR No. 139908

2004-03-10

FERNANDO MANANGAN v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We reject the contention of the petitioner. The well-settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court as well as its calibration of the evidence of the parties, its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.[8] In this case, the findings of the trial court and its conclusions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We have reviewed the records and we find no justification to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court.

GR No. 137347

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PO3 FERDINAND FALLORINA Y FERNANDO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

For the accused, therefore, to claim that Vincent was accidentally shot is odious, if not, an insult to human intelligence; it is incredible and unbelievable, and more of a fantasy than a reality. It was a deliberate and intentional act, contrary to accused's claim, that it happened outside the sway of his will.[45] It is a well-entrenched rule that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the credibility of the said witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect by the appellate court, as the trial judge was in a better position to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses as they testified.[46] We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court.

	GR No. 172752 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SISON REYES, R.T., J.
Here, Bernabe was suddenly shot without any warning by appellant at a distance of about 3 to 4 meters. An unexpected and sudden attack, which renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness of the attack, constitutes alevosia.[54] Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[55]
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[55] Unlawful aggression is a sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude.[56]
	GR NO. 153794 2006-06-26	SERGIO MARZONIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In contrast, Diosdado's testimony as eyewitness to the crime was found credible by both the trial and appellate courts. Indeed, Diosdado's testimony is credible. He remained steadfast on his account of the incident during cross-examination by defense counsel, and in answering questions from the trial court. He had no improper motive to pin Sergio for the crime, which is admitted by Sergio.[34] Diosdado's positive, clear and credible testimony suffices to convict the petitioner of homicide. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of the testimonies.[35]
	GR No. 149538 2004-07-26	PEOPLE v. VINCENT HENRY CHUA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court did not find any motive for Manabat and Santos to pinpoint the accused as the culprit. There is no animosity nor bad blood between Manabat and Santos, on one hand, and the accused, on the other hand. In fact, Manabat and Santos are afraid of the accused because Vincent Henry Chua is a "siga" and "matapang" as per testimony of Rodelito Santos considering the fact that the family of the accused is the owner of the lot where the peryahan is located.[14] The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court. The well-settled rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts and circumstances which if considered warrants a revision or reversal of the outcome of the case.[15] We have reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.
	GR No. 144343 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. RICSON PARRENO Y ATIDO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery against the appellants. The elements for treachery to be appreciated as qualifying circumstance are (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously adopted.[46] Even a frontal attack may be considered treacherous when sudden and unexpected, and employed on an unarmed victim who would not be in a position to repel the attack or to avoid it.[47] The essence of treachery is the swiftness and unexpectedness of the attack on the unarmed victim.[48]
	GR No. 133440 2004-06-07	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO REFORMA Y PEDRIGAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
In denying having stabbed and killed the victim, the appellant thereby assails the credibility of Zenaida and Roger and the credibility and probative weight of their testimonies. However, the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of the said witnesses. It declared that "the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses are clear, positive, straightforward and devoid of signs of artificiality. No ill motive could be ascribed to them, even by herein accused Reforma, to falsely incriminate the accused."[13] The well-established rule is that, the trial court's calibration and assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as its findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the appellate court because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[14] Although there are exceptions, we find no justification, after our review of the records, to deviate from the findings of the trial court and its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.
	GR No. 147196 2004-06-04	PEOPLE v. EDGAR DUMADAG Y CAGADAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Time and again, we have consistently ruled that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, as well as its conclusions on its findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[25] This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[26] In this case, the trial court gave credence and probative weight to the testimony of Jovy Baylin. After a careful review of the records of this case, we find no cogent reason to overrule the trial court's findings that the appellant stabbed the victim.
	GR No. 118912 2004-05-28	PEOPLE v. QUINTIN CASTILLO Y MASANGKAY AZCUNA, J.
At the time the crime was committed, the appropriate penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.[40] Considering that there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.[41] The penalty of reclusion perpetua is indivisible.[42] Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.
	GR No. 148627 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ PUNO, J.
At no time during the course of the trial did Cristeta's testimony regarding the complicity of appellant Danilo Ibañez ever change. From the onset, Cristeta had testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was one of the four men who threw objects at her house and demanded for her father to go down.[45] When she went out of their house, she saw the men making the commotion, and clearly identified appellant Danilo Ibañez among them. [46] Aided by the light of the moon and standing barely 2 meters away, she identified him and recognized his voice easily, as he was familiar to her. She knew him and the other three aggressors as neighbors who frequently came and ate at her house.[47] She unequivocally testified that appellant Danilo Ibañez was the second man to hack her father after appellant Jenelito.[48] An eyewitness account, coupled with the fact of the victim's death, are sufficient proof of the guilt of the appellant beyond cavil of doubt, for the crime of murder.[49]
	GR No. 139823 2004-03-12	PEOPLE v. ROWEN SAMPAGA Y LIMENOQUEN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages, and requires adequate proof thereof. For loss of income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income as well as proof of average expenses. The award for lost income refers to the net income of the deceased; that is, the total income less average expenses. No proof of the victim's average expenses were adduced in evidence; as such, there can be no reliable estimate of lost earnings.[14] Indeed, the award of the trial court was based merely on speculation and surmises.[15] Finally, the appellant is liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[16]
	GR No. 139908 2004-03-10	FERNANDO MANANGAN v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
We reject the contention of the petitioner. The well-settled rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court as well as its calibration of the evidence of the parties, its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.[8] In this case, the findings of the trial court and its conclusions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We have reviewed the records and we find no justification to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court.
	GR No. 137347 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PO3 FERDINAND FALLORINA Y FERNANDO CALLEJO, SR., J.
For the accused, therefore, to claim that Vincent was accidentally shot is odious, if not, an insult to human intelligence; it is incredible and unbelievable, and more of a fantasy than a reality. It was a deliberate and intentional act, contrary to accused's claim, that it happened outside the sway of his will.[45] It is a well-entrenched rule that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the credibility of the said witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect by the appellate court, as the trial judge was in a better position to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses as they testified.[46] We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court.

PEOPLE v. JERRYVIE GUMAYAO Y DAHAO