Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183094 2010-09-22	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARDE PEREZ, J.
In comparison with the clear and straightforward testimony of prosecution witnesses, all that appellant could muster is the defense of denial and alibi. It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses.[60] For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[61] Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification is inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[62]
	GR No. 145504 2004-06-30	PEOPLE v. LARRY CAGAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make. Two essential elements must thus concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[26]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00[20] which is awarded without need of proof.
	GR No. 130531 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SIMON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Treachery was correctly considered by the trial court as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. It was alleged in the Information and proved during the hearing. Treachery exists "when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[53] Here, while the group was engaged in a drinking spree, SPO4 Rodriguez suddenly hit the victim on his head with a revolver. While he ran towards the nearby house of his girl friend, however, there was no way he could escape. The group followed him and attacked him with fist blows, tied his hands with an "alambre," kicked him and immediately, SPO4 Rodriguez hit him again with a "dos por dos" and a gun. Junel Bunao tied his mouth with a handkerchief. Still wanting to harm him more, they "burned" him with cigarette butts ("pinagpapaso ng sigarilyo"). Inside Bajado's garage, the group continued inflicting injuries on him. Under these circumstances, how could the helpless victim defend himself or retaliate?
	GR No. 135204 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. NARCISO RAMOS Y MATIAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The killing of the victim was attended by treachery. Treachery exists "when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense or retaliatory act which the victim might make."[9] Here, appellant and her co-accused tied William to a santol tree before they stabbed and shot him to death, thus, insuring the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. Obviously, he could not retaliate. This aggravating circumstance qualifies the crime to murder.
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, this Court has strongly ruled that the former must prevail.[67] Indeed, positive identification of the appellants when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[68]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Having established conspiracy, the trial court correctly convicted the appellants for the crime of murder as it is no longer necessary to determine who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow.[74] As further elucidated by the Court in People vs. Natividad[75], to wit: To hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he performed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all. It matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.[76] (Emphasis supplied). The trial court did not err in appreciating the presence of treachery in the fatal stabbing of Celestino.