Lawyerly

GR No. 187733

2012-02-08

BRION, J.

The lower courts correctly ruled that the appellant and John Doe acted in conspiracy with one another. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution.[6]

GR No. 179497

2012-01-25

PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Anent the award of actual damages, the victim's widow testified that the family spent a total of P66,904.00 relative to the wake and burial of the victim. However, the claim for said amount is supported merely by a list of expenses[43] personally prepared by the widow instead of official receipts. To be entitled to an award of actual damages, "it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable x x x."[44] "A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions."[45] Thus the Court deletes the lower courts' award of actual damages. Nonetheless, since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00[46] should be awarded in lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages "may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."

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. 175195

2010-09-15

VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[29] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.[30]

GR No. 171526

2010-09-01

RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Robbery with homicide exists "when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and[,] (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery."[16]

GR No. 148974

2010-07-02

OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA

PERALTA, J.

For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[38] Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[39]

GR No. 185209

2010-06-28

PEOPLE v. RENE BARON Y TANGAROCAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed. A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[6]

GR No. 182460

2010-03-09

PEOPLE v. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA

PEREZ, J.

Anent the actual damages awarded to Eulogio amounting to P250,000.00, as indemnification for the burned house, We note that said amount representing the value of the burned house was merely given by Eulogio as an estimate. It was not substantiated by any document or receipt. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[35]

GR No. 184792

2009-10-12

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

Didong's proffered defense to evade criminal responsibility is too feeble to merit consideration. His defense of alibi cannot overcome, and is in fact destroyed by the categorical testimony of Anthony, who positively pointed to and identified him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[25] And when the law speaks of physical impossibility, the reference is to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the locus criminis, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[26] Where the possibility exists for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[27] Evidently, here, the requisites for appreciating alibi are not present. In fact, by appellant's own admission, he was with one of his co-accused the day before Ahlladin's death was uncovered. Even supposing that during the latter part of the day, he really did go home, such a detail does not remove the possibility of his being at the forested area, the scene of the crime.

GR No. 185712

2009-08-04

PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Achas' claim of being in Bukidnon, a province adjoining Misamis Oriental, during the commission of the sexual assaults stands uncorroborated and cannot be given much consideration to support his alibi. He was not able to show the physical impossibility of his being with AAA at the time the incidents occurred. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show being somewhere else during the actual commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Alibi must fail where, owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access between the two places involved, there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene.[29] But just to put things in the proper perspective, what Achas testified to, as noted by the trial court, was that he went to Don Carlos, Bukidnon in May 1999 and left that municipality in October 1999,[30] a plausible alibi for the July 1999 rape incident only.

GR No. 170472

2009-07-03

PEOPLE v. JOJO MUSA Y SANTOS

BRION, J.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. Robbery with homicide is committed when a person is killed, either by reason or on occasion of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the malefactor's main purpose and objective, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery.[37]

GR No. 179943

2009-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO

PERALTA, J.

For his defense, appellant merely denied participating in the robbery. However, his presence during the commission of the crime was well-established as appellant himself testified as to the matter. Granting that he was merely present during the robbery, his inaction does not exculpate him. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.[51] Appellant offered no evidence that he performed an overt act neither to escape from the company of the robbers nor to prevent the robbery from taking place. His denial, therefore, is of no value. Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. As both evidence are negative and self-serving, they cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[52]

GR No. 170222

2009-06-18

EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

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 accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[17] Where there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[18]

GR NO. 155223

2007-04-03

BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. FLORA SAN DIEGO-SISON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner received from respondent two million pesos in cash and one million pesos in a post-dated check dated February 28, 1990, instead of 1991, which rendered said check stale.[7] Petitioner then gave respondent TCT No. 168173 in the name of IMRDC and the Deed of Absolute Sale over the property between petitioner and IMRDC.

AC. NO. 6656

2005-12-13

BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. ATTY. CARMENCITA BAUTISTA LOZADA

CORONA, J.

Since the transaction between her and San Diego did not materialize, complainant allegedly tried to recover from respondent the title[4] to the property and other documents.[5] Respondent, however, started avoiding her. Complainant recovered the documents placed inside an envelope only on May 6, 1991. On the same day, however, the envelope was allegedly stolen from her Pajero. She reported the incident to the police.[6] She also informed respondent about the incident, and the latter prepared an affidavit of loss.[7] Complainant later offered this affidavit as evidence in a petition for issuance of a duplicate copy of the title she filed in the RTC of Makati, Branch 142.[8]

	GR No. 187733 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO “REY” BUYAGAN BRION, J.
The lower courts correctly ruled that the appellant and John Doe acted in conspiracy with one another. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution.[6]
	GR No. 179497 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Anent the award of actual damages, the victim's widow testified that the family spent a total of P66,904.00 relative to the wake and burial of the victim. However, the claim for said amount is supported merely by a list of expenses[43] personally prepared by the widow instead of official receipts. To be entitled to an award of actual damages, "it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable x x x."[44] "A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions."[45] Thus the Court deletes the lower courts' award of actual damages. Nonetheless, since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00[46] should be awarded in lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim pursuant to Article 2224 of the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages "may be recovered when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."
	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. 175195 2010-09-15	VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[29] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.[30]
	GR No. 171526 2010-09-01	RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Robbery with homicide exists "when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and[,] (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery."[16]
	GR No. 148974 2010-07-02	OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA PERALTA, J.
For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[38] Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[39]
	GR No. 185209 2010-06-28	PEOPLE v. RENE BARON Y TANGAROCAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed. A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[6]
	GR No. 182460 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA PEREZ, J.
Anent the actual damages awarded to Eulogio amounting to P250,000.00, as indemnification for the burned house, We note that said amount representing the value of the burned house was merely given by Eulogio as an estimate. It was not substantiated by any document or receipt. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[35]
	GR No. 184792 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DELA CRUZ Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
Didong's proffered defense to evade criminal responsibility is too feeble to merit consideration. His defense of alibi cannot overcome, and is in fact destroyed by the categorical testimony of Anthony, who positively pointed to and identified him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, in order to justify an acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[25] And when the law speaks of physical impossibility, the reference is to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the locus criminis, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[26] Where the possibility exists for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[27] Evidently, here, the requisites for appreciating alibi are not present. In fact, by appellant's own admission, he was with one of his co-accused the day before Ahlladin's death was uncovered. Even supposing that during the latter part of the day, he really did go home, such a detail does not remove the possibility of his being at the forested area, the scene of the crime.
	GR No. 185712 2009-08-04	PEOPLE v. LILIO U. ACHAS VELASCO JR., J.
Achas' claim of being in Bukidnon, a province adjoining Misamis Oriental, during the commission of the sexual assaults stands uncorroborated and cannot be given much consideration to support his alibi. He was not able to show the physical impossibility of his being with AAA at the time the incidents occurred. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show being somewhere else during the actual commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Alibi must fail where, owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access between the two places involved, there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene.[29] But just to put things in the proper perspective, what Achas testified to, as noted by the trial court, was that he went to Don Carlos, Bukidnon in May 1999 and left that municipality in October 1999,[30] a plausible alibi for the July 1999 rape incident only.
	GR No. 170472 2009-07-03	PEOPLE v. JOJO MUSA Y SANTOS BRION, J.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. Robbery with homicide is committed when a person is killed, either by reason or on occasion of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the malefactor's main purpose and objective, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery.[37]
	GR No. 179943 2009-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO PERALTA, J.
For his defense, appellant merely denied participating in the robbery. However, his presence during the commission of the crime was well-established as appellant himself testified as to the matter. Granting that he was merely present during the robbery, his inaction does not exculpate him. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.[51] Appellant offered no evidence that he performed an overt act neither to escape from the company of the robbers nor to prevent the robbery from taking place. His denial, therefore, is of no value. Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense. As both evidence are negative and self-serving, they cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[52]
	GR No. 170222 2009-06-18	EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
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 accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places.[17] Where there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.[18]
	GR NO. 155223 2007-04-03	BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. FLORA SAN DIEGO-SISON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner received from respondent two million pesos in cash and one million pesos in a post-dated check dated February 28, 1990, instead of 1991, which rendered said check stale.[7] Petitioner then gave respondent TCT No. 168173 in the name of IMRDC and the Deed of Absolute Sale over the property between petitioner and IMRDC.
	AC. NO. 6656 2005-12-13	BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. ATTY. CARMENCITA BAUTISTA LOZADA CORONA, J.
Since the transaction between her and San Diego did not materialize, complainant allegedly tried to recover from respondent the title[4] to the property and other documents.[5] Respondent, however, started avoiding her. Complainant recovered the documents placed inside an envelope only on May 6, 1991. On the same day, however, the envelope was allegedly stolen from her Pajero. She reported the incident to the police.[6] She also informed respondent about the incident, and the latter prepared an affidavit of loss.[7] Complainant later offered this affidavit as evidence in a petition for issuance of a duplicate copy of the title she filed in the RTC of Makati, Branch 142.[8]

PEOPLE v. FO1 FELIPE DELA CRUZ Y REYES