Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERASTO ACOSTA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 183087 2008-12-04	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO ISANG Y LAGAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be borne in mind that the evidence presented by the prosecution is entirely unrebutted, as the defense failed to present any evidence on account of Isang's escape from detention. That Isang escaped from detention during the pendency of the case before the trial court is in itself an indication of his guilt. The flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of his guilty mind.[10] Flight evidences guilt and a guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.[11]
	GR No. 175692 2008-10-29	ANGEL UBALES Y VELEZ v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also take note of petitioner Ubales' stance when he was confronted by Laila Cruz and SPO2 Fernandez. Ubales told SPO2 Fernandez that he would voluntarily join him to prove to him that he was not in hiding. Ubales then cooperated fully with SPO2 Fernandez, allowing himself to undergo a medical examination, which apparently yielded nothing as the findings thereof was not presented as evidence, and going with the SPO2 Fernandez to the PNP Malacañang Field Force. Flight evidences guilt and guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.[13] In all, we find it hard to lend credence to the testimony of the lone alleged eyewitness.
	GR No. 169082 2007-08-17	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO DE GUZMAN Y ELEMENCIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
For alibi, which has been held to be the weakest of all defenses, to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[11]
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
In its decision, the trial court itself declared that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. Hence, the award of exemplary damages was correctly deleted by the CA in its assailed decision, consistent with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Acosta,[22] to wit:Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. To recapitulate, the guiding rule in rape cases is that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. XXX's testimony, given in a straightforward manner amidst sobs as she recounted her harrowing experience, is indubitably credible especially considering that there is no showing that she was motivated by any evil motive to falsely testify against appellant who is a complete stranger to her. As we see it, XXX, innocent and na&luml;ve as she is to the ways of the world, would not concoct a tale of defloration or bestiality and consequently subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in sordid details how she was raped, if she was not in fact raped, unless motivated by her quest to right an injustice done to her.[23]
	GR No. 153248 2004-03-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS MORILES QUISUMBING, J.
Noteworthy, after the stabbing incident, appellant took flight. A warrant of arrest against the appellant was issued on January 3, 1995. But it was only on April 11, 1999, that the appellant was taken into custody by the police. For five years, appellant disappeared from view, until the long arm of the law caught up with him. As previously held, the flight of the accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established "for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence."[34] Flight evidences guilt and guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.[35]
	GR No. 137497 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. CHARLES JOY FLORES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant's protestation is further belied by his admission that upon learning of Nathaniel's death, he went to Bulacan and thereafter proceeded to Palawan where he was apprehended. There is no doubt that he fled because of a guilty conscience. The rule is settled that flight evidences guilt.[17]
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In determining the proper penalty to be imposed, the next step is to determine the presence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength alleged in the Information is absorbed by said circumstance.[63] The Court finds no other aggravating circumstance that was alleged in the Information and proven by the prosecution.
	GR No. 143294 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MAGALONA Y ONOON PER CURIAM
Further, there is no evidence showing that Sabater was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant; hence, his testimony deserves full faith and credence.[69] It is well settled that the positive testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to support a judgment of conviction because truth is established by the quality, not the quantity, of the evidence.[70]
	GR No. 146696 2003-07-03	PEOPLE v. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of P50,000.00 by the trial court should be deemed as moral damages, which are awarded without need of further proof and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[30] It is awarded for the anguish suffered by the victim's wife because of the victim's death. In addition, exemplary damages must also be awarded considering the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to Murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender.[31] Thus, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[32]