Lawyerly

GR No. 209464

2015-07-01

MENDOZA, J.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.[94] The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.[95]

GR No. 177751

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Having established conspiracy, appellants' assertion that each of them can only be made liable for his own acts deserves no merit. Evidence as to who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another. [29] In a conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. [30]

GR No. 182551

2011-07-27

PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Likewise, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, minority and intoxication. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.[60] On the other hand, dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that was filed on January 23, 2003. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, a generic aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated by the Court unless alleged in the information. This requirement is laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, to wit: SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.[32]

GR No. 173791

2009-04-07

PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA

BRION, J.

Where there is conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another.[106] Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.[107]

GR NO. 157057

2007-06-26

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.[25] If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim; or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim.[26]

GR NO. 160188

2007-06-21

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA Y NATIVIDAD v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a "subjective phase," or that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.[31] After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the objective phase begins.[32] It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted.[33] On the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, "[s]ubjectively the crime is complete."[34]

GR NO. 168827

2007-04-13

BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of the following: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.[60]

GR No. 172608

2007-02-06

PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We cannot convict appellant of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person attacked. [93] Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to exclude reasonable doubt thereof. [94] Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. [95]

GR NO. 149175

2005-10-25

JAIME H. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

AZCUNA, J.

Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed.[41] To establish conspiracy, direct proof of an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it is not necessary.[42] 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,[43] as the proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.[44] Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them, for in contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all.[45]

GR NO. 141066

2005-02-17

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Article 8 of the RPC provides that "a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[34] The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.[35]

GR No. 153559

2004-06-08

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO COMADRE

PER CURIAM

The award of moral damages is appropriate there being evidence to show emotional suffering on the part of the heirs of the deceased, but the same must be increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing judicial policy.[45]

GR No. 151251

2004-05-19

PEOPLE v. HOMER MAGDARAOG Y SALONA

PANGANIBAN, J.

It has not been shown that Brazal was moved by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellants. Even they admitted, on cross-examination, that they had no personal grudge against or misunderstanding with him.[28] Hence, his positive and categorical declarations on the stand under solemn oath should be given full faith and credence.[29]

GR No. 147231

2004-02-18

PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The trial court likewise erred when it awarded the amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages without indicating what amount constitutes moral damages and exemplary damages. In murder and homicide cases, the award of moral damages should be substantiated by evidence.[29] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present proof of moral damages. Therefore, the same should be deleted.

GR No. 147314

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The heirs of the victim Purita Sotero are entitled to P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto;[31] P50,000 as moral damages;[32] P25,000 as exemplary damages;[33] and P25,000 as temperate damages.[34]

GR No. 127492

2004-01-16

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO SANTOS

TINGA, J,

Lucita Guevarra is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[51] for the mental anguish and serious anxiety she suffered.[52] Lucita testified that as she witnessed the attack against her son, she became dizzy and "felt really bad."[53] Upon learning of her son's death, she cried.[54]

GR No. 139692

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. JESSIELITO BADAJOS Y SUMBIDAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The Court awarded P144,000.00 for actual damages, P12,000.00 for his lost earnings and P9,326.00 for the burial and wake despite the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same. The award shall be deleted. However, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for burial and wake expenses.[27] The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in accord with existing jurisprudence.[28] As to the award of moral damages, the same is increased to P50,000.00, conformably to current jurisprudence.[29] The heirs are entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[30]

GR No. 150590

2003-08-21

PEOPLE v. WILLIE ALMEDILLA Y ARCILLA

PUNO, J.

We now come to the civil liabilities of Almedilla. The civil indemnity due the heirs of the victim should be P50,000.00 in accord with recent jurisprudence.[17] There should also be an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for the anguish Gemma suffered due to the death of Ruel.[18] It is the rule that claims of actual damages must be supported by evidence.[19] In this case, although Gemma claimed P100,000.00 as actual damages, she was able to present receipts showing actual expenses the total of which is only P80,600.00.[20] Similarly, the award of loss of earning capacity should be deleted for lack of proof. When asked to present evidence of her claim that Ruel earned P22,000.00 a month and P10,000.00 for every plan that he used to make as a sideline, Gemma replied that she did not bring the proofs with her to court.[21] In People vs. Castillano,[22] we held that "compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and as such requires due proof of the damage suffered; there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income." Nonetheless, we award P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the lack of proof of the average income of the victim.[23]

	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.[94] The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.[95]
	GR No. 177751 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER DEL CASTILLO, J.
Having established conspiracy, appellants' assertion that each of them can only be made liable for his own acts deserves no merit. Evidence as to who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another. [29] In a conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. [30]
	GR No. 182551 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN Y LAMSIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Likewise, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, minority and intoxication. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.[60] On the other hand, dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that was filed on January 23, 2003. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, a generic aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated by the Court unless alleged in the information. This requirement is laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, to wit: SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.[32]
	GR No. 173791 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA BRION, J.
Where there is conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another.[106] Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.[107]
	GR NO. 157057 2007-06-26	LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.[25] If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim; or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim.[26]
	GR NO. 160188 2007-06-21	ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA Y NATIVIDAD v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a "subjective phase," or that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.[31] After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the objective phase begins.[32] It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted.[33] On the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, "[s]ubjectively the crime is complete."[34]
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of the following: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.[60]
	GR No. 172608 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot convict appellant of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person attacked. [93] Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to exclude reasonable doubt thereof. [94] Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. [95]
	GR NO. 149175 2005-10-25	JAIME H. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN AZCUNA, J.
Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed.[41] To establish conspiracy, direct proof of an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it is not necessary.[42] 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,[43] as the proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.[44] Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them, for in contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all.[45]
	GR NO. 141066 2005-02-17	EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article 8 of the RPC provides that "a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[34] The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.[35]
	GR No. 153559 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO COMADRE PER CURIAM
The award of moral damages is appropriate there being evidence to show emotional suffering on the part of the heirs of the deceased, but the same must be increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing judicial policy.[45]
	GR No. 151251 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HOMER MAGDARAOG Y SALONA PANGANIBAN, J.
It has not been shown that Brazal was moved by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellants. Even they admitted, on cross-examination, that they had no personal grudge against or misunderstanding with him.[28] Hence, his positive and categorical declarations on the stand under solemn oath should be given full faith and credence.[29]
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The trial court likewise erred when it awarded the amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages without indicating what amount constitutes moral damages and exemplary damages. In murder and homicide cases, the award of moral damages should be substantiated by evidence.[29] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present proof of moral damages. Therefore, the same should be deleted.
	GR No. 147314 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The heirs of the victim Purita Sotero are entitled to P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto;[31] P50,000 as moral damages;[32] P25,000 as exemplary damages;[33] and P25,000 as temperate damages.[34]
	GR No. 127492 2004-01-16	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO SANTOS TINGA, J,
Lucita Guevarra is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00[51] for the mental anguish and serious anxiety she suffered.[52] Lucita testified that as she witnessed the attack against her son, she became dizzy and "felt really bad."[53] Upon learning of her son's death, she cried.[54]
	GR No. 139692 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. JESSIELITO BADAJOS Y SUMBIDAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court awarded P144,000.00 for actual damages, P12,000.00 for his lost earnings and P9,326.00 for the burial and wake despite the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same. The award shall be deleted. However, the heirs are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for burial and wake expenses.[27] The award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is in accord with existing jurisprudence.[28] As to the award of moral damages, the same is increased to P50,000.00, conformably to current jurisprudence.[29] The heirs are entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[30]
	GR No. 150590 2003-08-21	PEOPLE v. WILLIE ALMEDILLA Y ARCILLA PUNO, J.
We now come to the civil liabilities of Almedilla. The civil indemnity due the heirs of the victim should be P50,000.00 in accord with recent jurisprudence.[17] There should also be an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for the anguish Gemma suffered due to the death of Ruel.[18] It is the rule that claims of actual damages must be supported by evidence.[19] In this case, although Gemma claimed P100,000.00 as actual damages, she was able to present receipts showing actual expenses the total of which is only P80,600.00.[20] Similarly, the award of loss of earning capacity should be deleted for lack of proof. When asked to present evidence of her claim that Ruel earned P22,000.00 a month and P10,000.00 for every plan that he used to make as a sideline, Gemma replied that she did not bring the proofs with her to court.[21] In People vs. Castillano,[22] we held that "compensation for lost income is in the nature of damages and as such requires due proof of the damage suffered; there must be unbiased proof of the deceased's average income." Nonetheless, we award P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the lack of proof of the average income of the victim.[23]

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO CABALLERO