Lawyerly

GR No. 197813

2013-09-25

PEREZ, J.

That on or about the 29th day of August, 2004, in the municipality of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a soil digger (bareta) and with intent to kill one Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, conspiring, confederating and helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery, attack, assault and hit with the said soil digger (bareta) the said Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, hitting the latter on his head, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.[4]

GR No. 187049

2010-05-04

PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Appellant's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against the positive identification by the private complainant, appellant's alibi is worthless.[44] Having been identified by the victim herself, appellant cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[45] From the evidence on record, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since the crime scene was only three and a half (3-½) kilometers away from where appellant was allegedly working. Moreover, as testified to by his sister-in-law, motor vehicles regularly ply the Barangay XXX - Barangay YYY route. We have held that: Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[46]

GR No. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court of Appeals was correct in refusing to award actual damages in favor of Pedro's heirs. To be entitled to actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof, such as receipts or other documents to support the claim.[66] In the case before us, no receipt or supporting document pertaining to the amount of hospital, funeral and burial expenses for Pedro was submitted. Hence, actual damages are not recoverable. Nonetheless, under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages "may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." It cannot be denied that the heirs of Pedro suffered pecuniary loss due to Pedro's hospital, funeral and burial expenses, although the amount thereof was not determined with certitude. Accordingly, in lieu of actual damages, the heirs of Pedro are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[67]

GR No. 175605

2009-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The award of P408,000.00 for loss of earning capacity is justified. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[35] It cannot be disputed that the victim, at the time of his death, was self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. The computation arrived at by the trial court was in accordance with the formula for computing the award for loss of earning capacity.[36] Thus,

GR No. 171735

2009-04-16

PEOPLE v. ALEJO OBLIGADO Y MAGDARAOG

CORONA, J.

(c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary.[7]

GR No. 172832

2009-04-06

ROSARIO T. DE VERA v. GEREN A. DE VERA

NACHURA, J.

For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and 3) the surrender was voluntary.[24] The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.[25] Without these elements, and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and, therefore, cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to serve as a mitigating circumstance.[26]

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]

GR NO. 166479

2006-02-28

RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, the accused's alibi is worthless.[30] Having been identified by two credible witnesses, petitioner cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[31] Courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also it can be fabricated easily.[32] As found by the trial court, it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since it only takes a ten-minute ride from the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Berting Soriano to the crime scene. We have held that:Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[33]

GR No. 159636

2004-11-25

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The award of compensatory damages for the loss of the deceased's earning capacity should be deleted for lack of basis. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[38]

GR No. 139456

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. ADONES ABATAYO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victims are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[70] In the case at bar, however, while the victims' mother testified that her sons remitted to her their income, she did not indicate how much her sons were then earning.[71] Thus, this case does not fall under any of the exceptions.

GR No. 131117

2004-06-15

PEOPLE v. NELSON CARIÑO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Appellant Domingo Banhaon insists that his voluntary surrender and his refusal to escape during the jail break gives proof to his innocence. In order for voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and, (3) the surrender was voluntary. Further, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in search and capture.[54]

GR No. 140385

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. MARIO MARCELO Y DELA CRUZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We note that the offense was committed at nighttime. However, in order for the aggravating circumstance of nighttime to be appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity.[52] However, it was not shown that the same was specifically employed to facilitate the commission of the crime.

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The facts also show that the crime was committed by a band since more than three armed persons took part in its commission.[80] However, we cannot appreciate such circumstance against the appellants for failure of the prosecution to state the same in the Information as required by Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Since the present rule is favorable to the appellants, it shall be given retroactive effect.[81]

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code the heirs of the victim are also entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. To be entitled to such an award, documentary evidence is necessary. By way of exception, testimonial evidence would suffice: (1) if the victim was self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) if the victim was employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[104]

	GR No. 197813 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. EDWIN IBAÑEZ Y ALBANTE PEREZ, J.
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2004, in the municipality of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a soil digger (bareta) and with intent to kill one Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, conspiring, confederating and helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery, attack, assault and hit with the said soil digger (bareta) the said Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, hitting the latter on his head, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.[4]
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Appellant's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against the positive identification by the private complainant, appellant's alibi is worthless.[44] Having been identified by the victim herself, appellant cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[45] From the evidence on record, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since the crime scene was only three and a half (3-½) kilometers away from where appellant was allegedly working. Moreover, as testified to by his sister-in-law, motor vehicles regularly ply the Barangay XXX - Barangay YYY route. We have held that: Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[46]
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals was correct in refusing to award actual damages in favor of Pedro's heirs. To be entitled to actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof, such as receipts or other documents to support the claim.[66] In the case before us, no receipt or supporting document pertaining to the amount of hospital, funeral and burial expenses for Pedro was submitted. Hence, actual damages are not recoverable. Nonetheless, under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages "may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." It cannot be denied that the heirs of Pedro suffered pecuniary loss due to Pedro's hospital, funeral and burial expenses, although the amount thereof was not determined with certitude. Accordingly, in lieu of actual damages, the heirs of Pedro are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[67]
	GR No. 175605 2009-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The award of P408,000.00 for loss of earning capacity is justified. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[35] It cannot be disputed that the victim, at the time of his death, was self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. The computation arrived at by the trial court was in accordance with the formula for computing the award for loss of earning capacity.[36] Thus,
	GR No. 171735 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. ALEJO OBLIGADO Y MAGDARAOG CORONA, J.
(c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary.[7]
	GR No. 172832 2009-04-06	ROSARIO T. DE VERA v. GEREN A. DE VERA NACHURA, J.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and 3) the surrender was voluntary.[24] The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.[25] Without these elements, and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous and, therefore, cannot be characterized as "voluntary surrender" to serve as a mitigating circumstance.[26]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Although the employees of Canscor Construction and Development Corporation were taken by surprise when the robbery took place, they were able to get a good look at the robbers who went inside the office. The most natural reaction of victims of violence is to strive to see the looks and faces of the malefactors and to observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[8] Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[9] In fact, experience dictates that precisely because of the startling acts of violence committed in their presence, eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time, the crime has been committed by them. [10] Witnesses need not know the names of the malefactors as long as they recognize their faces. [11] What is imperative is that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators' physical identification from the witnesses' own personal knowledge, as is obtaining in this case.[12]
	GR NO. 166479 2006-02-28	RODOLFO C. VELASCO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's defense of alibi likewise fails. As against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, the accused's alibi is worthless.[30] Having been identified by two credible witnesses, petitioner cannot escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.[31] Courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also it can be fabricated easily.[32] As found by the trial court, it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since it only takes a ten-minute ride from the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Berting Soriano to the crime scene. We have held that:Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[33]
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The award of compensatory damages for the loss of the deceased's earning capacity should be deleted for lack of basis. As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[38]
	GR No. 139456 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. ADONES ABATAYO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victims are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Ordinarily, documentary evidence is necessary for the purpose. By way of exception, testimonial evidence may suffice if the victim was either (1) self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[70] In the case at bar, however, while the victims' mother testified that her sons remitted to her their income, she did not indicate how much her sons were then earning.[71] Thus, this case does not fall under any of the exceptions.
	GR No. 131117 2004-06-15	PEOPLE v. NELSON CARIÑO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Appellant Domingo Banhaon insists that his voluntary surrender and his refusal to escape during the jail break gives proof to his innocence. In order for voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and, (3) the surrender was voluntary. Further, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in search and capture.[54]
	GR No. 140385 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. MARIO MARCELO Y DELA CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
We note that the offense was committed at nighttime. However, in order for the aggravating circumstance of nighttime to be appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity.[52] However, it was not shown that the same was specifically employed to facilitate the commission of the crime.
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The facts also show that the crime was committed by a band since more than three armed persons took part in its commission.[80] However, we cannot appreciate such circumstance against the appellants for failure of the prosecution to state the same in the Information as required by Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Since the present rule is favorable to the appellants, it shall be given retroactive effect.[81]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code the heirs of the victim are also entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. To be entitled to such an award, documentary evidence is necessary. By way of exception, testimonial evidence would suffice: (1) if the victim was self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) if the victim was employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[104]

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO