Lawyerly

GR No. 192241

2012-06-13

PERALTA, J.

Finally, absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been overlooked by the trial court, or that its findings have been arbitrary, the conclusions it arrives at must be respected and its judgment based thereon affirmed.[22]

GR No. 187044

2011-09-14

PEOPLE v. RENATO LAGAT Y GAWAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[53]

GR No. 181902

2011-08-31

PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO

PERALTA, J.

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[12] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[13] The appellant testified during trial that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City.[14] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[15]

GR No. 178771

2011-06-08

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO

PERALTA, J.

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. [28] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [29] During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous. [30] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical. [31]

GR No. 178272

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO

PERALTA, J.

Further, the Court gives less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[34] In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[35] Given the positive identification of the appellant by Geraldino, who is a credible witness, and the lack of physical impossibility for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, the defense of alibi must fail.

GR No. 178778

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. T & SGT. PORFERIO R. ANGUS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[32] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

GR No. 175528

2009-09-30

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON v. PEOPLE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial.[19] A reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[19]

GR No. 160811

2008-04-18

RICKY BASTIAN v. CA

REYES, R.T., J.

At the outset, We may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[24] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[25]

GR No. 163938

2008-03-28

DANTE BUEBOS v. PEOPLE

REYES, R.T., J.

reasoning towards a conviction.[16] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[17]

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Dwelling, however, cannot be appreciated in Criminal Case No. 98-0260 considering that the same was not alleged in the information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved otherwise; even if proved but not alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused.[64]

GR No. 175942

2007-09-13

PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM

GARCIA, J.

Conviction in a criminal case does not entail absolute certainty; what is required only is that degree of proof which, after an examination of the entire records of the case, produces in an unprejudiced mind moral certainty of the culpability of the accused.[14]

GR NO. 153979

2006-02-09

REGINO SY CATIIS v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in their judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial.[19] A reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance, thus Judge Bersamin is correct when he found that the lesser penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal, is imposable in case of conviction.

GR No. 138612

2003-11-11

PEOPLE v. PERCIVAL GONZA Y BORRAL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 which needs no proof other than the death of the victim.[53] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 is likewise sustained, pursuant to controlling case law.[54] However, the Court cannot sustain the award of actual damages in the amount of P50,000 considering that only the amount of P7,450 was properly receipted. Nevertheless, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[55]

GR No. 132218

2003-07-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE NAVARRO

PER CURIAM

While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.[40] Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable.[41] If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.[42]

GR No. 122109

2003-06-25

PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO

AZCUNA, J.

Furthermore, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, now require that qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances be expressly alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proven during trial.[49] Considering that the information in Criminal Case No. L-5188 did not allege that appellant shot the victim with an unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be appreciated in imposing the proper penalty.

	GR No. 192241 2012-06-13	ROMULO TRINIDAD v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Finally, absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been overlooked by the trial court, or that its findings have been arbitrary, the conclusions it arrives at must be respected and its judgment based thereon affirmed.[22]
	GR No. 187044 2011-09-14	PEOPLE v. RENATO LAGAT Y GAWAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[53]
	GR No. 181902 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO PERALTA, J.
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[12] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[13] The appellant testified during trial that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City.[14] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[15]
	GR No. 178771 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO PERALTA, J.
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. [28] Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. [29] During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous. [30] Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical. [31]
	GR No. 178272 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALCEDO PERALTA, J.
Further, the Court gives less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.[34] In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[35] Given the positive identification of the appellant by Geraldino, who is a credible witness, and the lack of physical impossibility for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, the defense of alibi must fail.
	GR No. 178778 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. T & SGT. PORFERIO R. ANGUS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[32] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
	GR No. 175528 2009-09-30	PO3 BENITO SOMBILON v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial.[19] A reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.[19]
	GR No. 160811 2008-04-18	RICKY BASTIAN v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
At the outset, We may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[24] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[25]
	GR No. 163938 2008-03-28	DANTE BUEBOS v. PEOPLE REYES, R.T., J.
reasoning towards a conviction.[16] Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[17]
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Dwelling, however, cannot be appreciated in Criminal Case No. 98-0260 considering that the same was not alleged in the information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved otherwise; even if proved but not alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused.[64]
	GR No. 175942 2007-09-13	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM GARCIA, J.
Conviction in a criminal case does not entail absolute certainty; what is required only is that degree of proof which, after an examination of the entire records of the case, produces in an unprejudiced mind moral certainty of the culpability of the accused.[14]
	GR NO. 153979 2006-02-09	REGINO SY CATIIS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in their judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial.[19] A reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance, thus Judge Bersamin is correct when he found that the lesser penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal, is imposable in case of conviction.
	GR No. 138612 2003-11-11	PEOPLE v. PERCIVAL GONZA Y BORRAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 which needs no proof other than the death of the victim.[53] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 is likewise sustained, pursuant to controlling case law.[54] However, the Court cannot sustain the award of actual damages in the amount of P50,000 considering that only the amount of P7,450 was properly receipted. Nevertheless, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.[55]
	GR No. 132218 2003-07-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE NAVARRO PER CURIAM
While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.[40] Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable.[41] If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.[42]
	GR No. 122109 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO AZCUNA, J.
Furthermore, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, now require that qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances be expressly alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proven during trial.[49] Considering that the information in Criminal Case No. L-5188 did not allege that appellant shot the victim with an unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be appreciated in imposing the proper penalty.

PEOPLE v. JOSE CASITAS JR.