Lawyerly

GR No. 176389

2010-12-14

ABAD, J.

The testimony of Alfaro on its material points was corroborated by Birrer, Dr. Cabanayan, White, Jr., Cabanacan and Gaviola. Appellants' presence at the scene of the crime before, during and after its commission was duly established. Their respective participation, acts and declarations were likewise detailed by Alfaro who was shown to be a credible witness. It is axiomatic that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[125]

GR No. 149548

2009-12-04

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The only recognized exceptions to the foregoing doctrine are the corrections of clerical errors or the making of the so-called nunc pro tunc entries, which cause no prejudice to any party, and, where the judgment is void.[75] Void judgments may be classified into two groups: those rendered by a court without jurisdiction to do so and those obtained by fraud or collusion.[76] None of these exceptions can be applied to the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 36299.

GR NO. 169075

2007-02-23

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN

GARCIA, J.

As to moral damages, the Court deems it just and reasonable that in cases of rape with homicide, the heirs of the victim should be awarded the amount of P75,000.00.[30]

GR NO. 169077

2006-08-31

PEOPLE v. NICANOR SALOME

AZCUNA, J.

Appellant further denies having raped Sally, asserting that he went fishing on three occasions in July of 1997. Denial, however, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.[24] For the defense of alibi and denial to prosper, appellant must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25]

GR NO. 152969

2004-07-07

PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE

VITUG, J.

The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence. Additionally, moral damages of P50,000.00 must be awarded for in crimes of rape it is to be assumed that the victim has suffered such damages.[25] Exemplary damages of P25,000.00 must also be awarded to the victim, the daughter of appellant, as has been sanctioned in People v. Catubig[26] pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

GR No. 133685-86

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. AMADO BAGNATE

PER CURIAM

The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00.[48] The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof,[49] in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. The fact that the heirs suffered the trauma of mental or physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for moral damages under the Civil Code are too obvious to still require recital thereof at trial.[50]

GR No. 138386-87

2004-05-20

PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The trial court lent credence to the testimony of Adoracion. Basic is the rule that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[28] The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[29] In People vs. Magallanes[30], we held that:The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply, or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.

GR No. 150224

2004-05-19

PEOPLE v. JOEL YATAR alias “KAWIT”

PER CURIAM

As to damages, civil indemnity ex delicto of P100,000.00,[57] actual damages incurred by the family of the victim that have been proved at the trial amounting to P93,190.00,[58] and moral damages of P75,000.00[59] should be awarded in the light of prevailing law and jurisprudence. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[60]

GR No. 152954

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA

PER CURIAM

Current judicial policy authorizes the mandatory award of P50,000.00 in case of death, and P50,000.00 upon the finding of rape. Thus, if homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape, indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 is fully justified and properly commensurate with the seriousness of the said complex crime.[26] We therefore award P100,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.

GR Nos. 139751-52

2004-01-26

PEOPLE v. NOEL DARILAY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Considering that at the time of the commission of the crime, the appellant was a minor under the parental authority of his parents, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by the heirs of the victims Marilyn and Ailyn Arganda.[40] Consequently, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, in Criminal Case No. RTC'97-201, to pay to the heirs of the victim Marilyn Arganda, the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;[41] P50,000.00 as moral damages;[42] and P28,000.00 as exemplary -damages.[43] The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support of actual damages; hence, the heirs of the victim are not entitled thereto. They are, however, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[44]

GR No. 140618

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Nonetheless, where no sufficient proof of actual damages is presented in the trial court (or when the actual damages proven is less than P25,000.00), this Court generally awards the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[85] it being reasonable to presume that when death occurs, the family of the victim necessarily incurs expenses for the wake and funeral.[86]

	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
The testimony of Alfaro on its material points was corroborated by Birrer, Dr. Cabanayan, White, Jr., Cabanacan and Gaviola. Appellants' presence at the scene of the crime before, during and after its commission was duly established. Their respective participation, acts and declarations were likewise detailed by Alfaro who was shown to be a credible witness. It is axiomatic that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[125]
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
The only recognized exceptions to the foregoing doctrine are the corrections of clerical errors or the making of the so-called nunc pro tunc entries, which cause no prejudice to any party, and, where the judgment is void.[75] Void judgments may be classified into two groups: those rendered by a court without jurisdiction to do so and those obtained by fraud or collusion.[76] None of these exceptions can be applied to the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 36299.
	GR NO. 169075 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN GARCIA, J.
As to moral damages, the Court deems it just and reasonable that in cases of rape with homicide, the heirs of the victim should be awarded the amount of P75,000.00.[30]
	GR NO. 169077 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. NICANOR SALOME AZCUNA, J.
Appellant further denies having raped Sally, asserting that he went fishing on three occasions in July of 1997. Denial, however, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.[24] For the defense of alibi and denial to prosper, appellant must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[25]
	GR NO. 152969 2004-07-07	PEOPLE v. BOBBY ORENSE VITUG, J.
The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence. Additionally, moral damages of P50,000.00 must be awarded for in crimes of rape it is to be assumed that the victim has suffered such damages.[25] Exemplary damages of P25,000.00 must also be awarded to the victim, the daughter of appellant, as has been sanctioned in People v. Catubig[26] pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 133685-86 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. AMADO BAGNATE PER CURIAM
The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00.[48] The heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof,[49] in view of the rape suffered by victim Rosalie. The fact that the heirs suffered the trauma of mental or physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for moral damages under the Civil Code are too obvious to still require recital thereof at trial.[50]
	GR No. 138386-87 2004-05-20	PEOPLE v. EUFROCINO AGUDEZ Y ASIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The trial court lent credence to the testimony of Adoracion. Basic is the rule that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[28] The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[29] In People vs. Magallanes[30], we held that:The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, or the forthright tone of a ready reply, or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
	GR No. 150224 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. JOEL YATAR alias “KAWIT” PER CURIAM
As to damages, civil indemnity ex delicto of P100,000.00,[57] actual damages incurred by the family of the victim that have been proved at the trial amounting to P93,190.00,[58] and moral damages of P75,000.00[59] should be awarded in the light of prevailing law and jurisprudence. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded as part of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[60]
	GR No. 152954 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA PER CURIAM
Current judicial policy authorizes the mandatory award of P50,000.00 in case of death, and P50,000.00 upon the finding of rape. Thus, if homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape, indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 is fully justified and properly commensurate with the seriousness of the said complex crime.[26] We therefore award P100,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
	GR Nos. 139751-52 2004-01-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL DARILAY CALLEJO, SR., J.
Considering that at the time of the commission of the crime, the appellant was a minor under the parental authority of his parents, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by the heirs of the victims Marilyn and Ailyn Arganda.[40] Consequently, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, in Criminal Case No. RTC'97-201, to pay to the heirs of the victim Marilyn Arganda, the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;[41] P50,000.00 as moral damages;[42] and P28,000.00 as exemplary -damages.[43] The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support of actual damages; hence, the heirs of the victim are not entitled thereto. They are, however, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[44]
	GR No. 140618 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Nonetheless, where no sufficient proof of actual damages is presented in the trial court (or when the actual damages proven is less than P25,000.00), this Court generally awards the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages,[85] it being reasonable to presume that when death occurs, the family of the victim necessarily incurs expenses for the wake and funeral.[86]

PEOPLE v. ZOILO MAGALLANES