Lawyerly

GR No. 206291

2016-01-18

PERALTA, J.

Meanwhile, the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape,[38] but not when the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.[39] In People v. Herbias,[40] the Court held:The use of motor vehicle may likewise be considered as an aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The records show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the jeepney driven by Saladio after which appellant's back rider mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime and lo facilitate their escape after they accomplished their mission.[41]

GR No. 184500

2012-09-11

PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA

PEREZ, J.

Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, which are usually incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons. More so, because of the partial and innocent suggestions, or for want of specific inquiries. In addition, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.[56] Similarly, the failure of a witness to immediately disclose the name of the culprit does not necessarily impair his or her credibility.[57]

GR No. 183457

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. ROEL ARBALATE

VELASCO JR., J.

The appellate and trial courts correctly rejected Ruperto's theory of self-defense. When he admitted authorship of the crime, the burden of proof shifted to him to establish all the elements of self-defense.[12] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing.[13] Thus, he must meet the requisites of self-defense, prescribed by Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

GR No. 172832

2009-04-06

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

NACHURA, J.

Simply stated, in judgments of conviction, errors in the decision cannot be corrected unless the accused consents thereto; or he, himself, moves for reconsideration of, or appeals from, the decision.[13]

GR No. 181901

2008-11-28

PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU

NACHURA, J.

[24] People v. Astudillo, 449 Phil. 778, 797 (2003).

GR No. 173876

2008-06-27

VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The alleged inconsistency between the affidavit of Nico and his court testimony is inconsequential. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement or affidavit and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness since an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries. Additionally, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement; hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.[37]

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, affidavits taken ex parte are considered incomplete and often inaccurate - they are the products of sometimes partial suggestions, at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.[48] Extrajudicial statements like affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.[49] It is of judicial knowledge that sworn statements are almost incomplete, often inaccurate and generally inferior to the testimony of a witness in open court. [50] Thus, whenever there is an inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the testimony commands greater weight.[51]

GR No. 167954

2008-01-31

PEOPLE v. PERLITO MONDIGO Y ABEMALEZ

CARPIO, J.

By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted committing the felonies for which he was charged albeit under circumstances which, if proven, would justify his commission of the crimes.[5] Thus, the burden of proof is shifted to appellant who must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of Damaso and wounding of Anthony were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[6]

GR NO. 168100

2007-11-20

PEOPLE v. MATEO DALEBA

CARPIO, J.

Since appellant invoked self-defense, he effectively admitted committing the acts leading to Renato's death albeit under circumstances justifying its commission. Appellant bears the burden of proving such circumstances[4] and we sustain the lower courts' findings that appellant failed to discharge this burden as he did not prove the elements of self-defense.[5] As the trial court noted, appellant's uncorroborated version of the events leading to Renato's death strains credulity. If, indeed, Renato suddenly attacked appellant inside a bus terminal in broad daylight by grabbing him by the neck and dragging appellant towards the back of the terminal, the ensuing commotion would have attracted the attention of the people around them. Appellant does not explain why no one came to his rescue. In contrast, the testimonies of the prosecution's two eyewitnesses dovetailed on how appellant, moments after quarreling with Renato, ran up to the latter and stabbed him from behind, just above the waistline.

GR NO. 149652

2006-03-24

EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE

AZCUNA, J.

The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and aggression.[22] By invoking self-defense, Baxinela, in effect, admits killing Lajo, thus shifting upon him the burden of the evidence on these elements.

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. 168220

2005-08-31

SPS. RUDY PARAGAS AND CORAZON B. PARAGAS v. BALACANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On the credibility of witnesses, it is in rhyme with reason to believe the testimonies of the witnesses for the complainants vis-à-vis those of the defendants. In the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following well-entrenched rules: (1) that evidence to be believed must not only spring from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible, and (2) findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witness are matters best left to the trial court who had the front-line opportunity to personally evaluate the witnesses' demeanor, conduct, and behavior while testifying.[20]

GR No. 159636

2004-11-25

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

[46] People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, 29 April 2003, 401 SCRA 723, 739.

GR No. 151834

2004-06-08

PEOPLE v. JUAN G. ESCOTE

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

As to the civil aspect of the case, the trial court awarded in favor of the victim's heirs "the amounts of P50,000.oo as indemnity for [the victim's] death and P50,000.oo as indemnity ex delicto." Such an award is duplicitous. Article 2206 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime, which current jurisprudence has set at P50,000. We, therefore, modify the decision by deleting the other award of P50,000. However, an award of exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000 is warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.[22] Exemplary damages is awarded when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[23]

GR No. 156786

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.[11] The number of wounds was established by the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth and ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[12] In this case, Antonio sustained fifteen hack and stab wounds. These wounds more than belie Vicente's assertion that he was defending himself.

GR No. 137147 AND GR No. 137148

2003-11-18

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In order that actual damages may be recovered, the amount actually expended must be substantiated with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[6] As we found in the assailed Decision, the award of P1,000,000.00 as actual damages was not fully supported by evidence; and the loss that respondent was able show was the $1,763.50 letter of credit and the remittance of $8,350.94, or a total of $10,114.44.

GR No. 126119

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP

AZCUNA, J.

With respect to the civil liability of appellants, an award of additional damages is in order. Despite the lack of evidence therefor, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 are awarded for the burial expenses incurred by the victim's heirs. [43] The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the victim justifies the grant of P25,000 as exemplary damages. [44] Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is sustained. [45]

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 Nos. 133796-97

2003-08-12

PEOPLE v. BERNANDINO ALAJAY Y MANGHINAYON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Criminal Case No. 94-311, for the death of Dorotheo Gabilan, the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the deceased, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and, P60,000.00 for actual damages stipulated upon by the parties.[24] The heirs are also entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[25] However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded by way of moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with recent case law.[26]

	GR No. 206291 2016-01-18	PEOPLE v. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN PERALTA, J.
Meanwhile, the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape,[38] but not when the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.[39] In People v. Herbias,[40] the Court held:The use of motor vehicle may likewise be considered as an aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The records show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the jeepney driven by Saladio after which appellant's back rider mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime and lo facilitate their escape after they accomplished their mission.[41]
	GR No. 184500 2012-09-11	PEOPLE OF PIIILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA PEREZ, J.
Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, which are usually incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons. More so, because of the partial and innocent suggestions, or for want of specific inquiries. In addition, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.[56] Similarly, the failure of a witness to immediately disclose the name of the culprit does not necessarily impair his or her credibility.[57]
	GR No. 183457 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. ROEL ARBALATE VELASCO JR., J.
The appellate and trial courts correctly rejected Ruperto's theory of self-defense. When he admitted authorship of the crime, the burden of proof shifted to him to establish all the elements of self-defense.[12] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing.[13] Thus, he must meet the requisites of self-defense, prescribed by Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
	GR No. 172832 2009-04-06	ROSARIO T. DE VERA v. GEREN A. DE VERA NACHURA, J.
Simply stated, in judgments of conviction, errors in the decision cannot be corrected unless the accused consents thereto; or he, himself, moves for reconsideration of, or appeals from, the decision.[13]
	GR No. 181901 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. EMILIO MANCHU NACHURA, J.
[24] People v. Astudillo, 449 Phil. 778, 797 (2003).
	GR No. 173876 2008-06-27	VALCESAR ESTIOCA Y MACAMAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The alleged inconsistency between the affidavit of Nico and his court testimony is inconsequential. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement or affidavit and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness since an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries. Additionally, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement; hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses' direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.[37]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, affidavits taken ex parte are considered incomplete and often inaccurate - they are the products of sometimes partial suggestions, at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.[48] Extrajudicial statements like affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent.[49] It is of judicial knowledge that sworn statements are almost incomplete, often inaccurate and generally inferior to the testimony of a witness in open court. [50] Thus, whenever there is an inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the testimony commands greater weight.[51]
	GR No. 167954 2008-01-31	PEOPLE v. PERLITO MONDIGO Y ABEMALEZ CARPIO, J.
By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted committing the felonies for which he was charged albeit under circumstances which, if proven, would justify his commission of the crimes.[5] Thus, the burden of proof is shifted to appellant who must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of Damaso and wounding of Anthony were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[6]
	GR NO. 168100 2007-11-20	PEOPLE v. MATEO DALEBA CARPIO, J.
Since appellant invoked self-defense, he effectively admitted committing the acts leading to Renato's death albeit under circumstances justifying its commission. Appellant bears the burden of proving such circumstances[4] and we sustain the lower courts' findings that appellant failed to discharge this burden as he did not prove the elements of self-defense.[5] As the trial court noted, appellant's uncorroborated version of the events leading to Renato's death strains credulity. If, indeed, Renato suddenly attacked appellant inside a bus terminal in broad daylight by grabbing him by the neck and dragging appellant towards the back of the terminal, the ensuing commotion would have attracted the attention of the people around them. Appellant does not explain why no one came to his rescue. In contrast, the testimonies of the prosecution's two eyewitnesses dovetailed on how appellant, moments after quarreling with Renato, ran up to the latter and stabbed him from behind, just above the waistline.
	GR NO. 149652 2006-03-24	EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE AZCUNA, J.
The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and aggression.[22] By invoking self-defense, Baxinela, in effect, admits killing Lajo, thus shifting upon him the burden of the evidence on these elements.
	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. 168220 2005-08-31	SPS. RUDY PARAGAS AND CORAZON B. PARAGAS v. BALACANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the credibility of witnesses, it is in rhyme with reason to believe the testimonies of the witnesses for the complainants vis-à-vis those of the defendants. In the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following well-entrenched rules: (1) that evidence to be believed must not only spring from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible, and (2) findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witness are matters best left to the trial court who had the front-line opportunity to personally evaluate the witnesses' demeanor, conduct, and behavior while testifying.[20]
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
[46] People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, 29 April 2003, 401 SCRA 723, 739.
	GR No. 151834 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. JUAN G. ESCOTE DAVIDE JR., CJ.
As to the civil aspect of the case, the trial court awarded in favor of the victim's heirs "the amounts of P50,000.oo as indemnity for [the victim's] death and P50,000.oo as indemnity ex delicto." Such an award is duplicitous. Article 2206 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime, which current jurisprudence has set at P50,000. We, therefore, modify the decision by deleting the other award of P50,000. However, an award of exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000 is warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.[22] Exemplary damages is awarded when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[23]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.[11] The number of wounds was established by the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth and ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[12] In this case, Antonio sustained fifteen hack and stab wounds. These wounds more than belie Vicente's assertion that he was defending himself.
	GR No. 137147 AND GR No. 137148 2003-11-18	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In order that actual damages may be recovered, the amount actually expended must be substantiated with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[6] As we found in the assailed Decision, the award of P1,000,000.00 as actual damages was not fully supported by evidence; and the loss that respondent was able show was the $1,763.50 letter of credit and the remittance of $8,350.94, or a total of $10,114.44.
	GR No. 126119 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP AZCUNA, J.
With respect to the civil liability of appellants, an award of additional damages is in order. Despite the lack of evidence therefor, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 are awarded for the burial expenses incurred by the victim's heirs. [43] The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the victim justifies the grant of P25,000 as exemplary damages. [44] Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is sustained. [45]
	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 Nos. 133796-97 2003-08-12	PEOPLE v. BERNANDINO ALAJAY Y MANGHINAYON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Criminal Case No. 94-311, for the death of Dorotheo Gabilan, the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay the heirs of the deceased, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and, P60,000.00 for actual damages stipulated upon by the parties.[24] The heirs are also entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[25] However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded by way of moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with recent case law.[26]

PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO