Lawyerly

GR NO. 168100

2007-11-20

CARPIO, J.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant must further pay the heirs of Renato exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[11]

GR No. 140278

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO

PANGANIBAN, J.

The factual matters now raised by appellant have been passed upon by the RTC. As a rule, its findings deserve weight and respect.[11] The same is true as regards the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because it is the trial judge who hears them and observes their demeanor while testifying.[12] It is only when the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended some facts or circumstances of weight and influence[13] that these matters are re-opened for independent examination and review by appellate courts.

GR No. 144598

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for treachery in the killing, the trial court correctly appreciated its presence. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[32] From Mariaca's and Cabag's testimony that appellant and Duetes held the victim while Quijada struck the nape of the victim, the victim was rendered defenseless. There can be no mistaking then that the manner by which the victim was restrained and assaulted was deliberately and consciously adopted by his assailants to ensure his demise.

GR No. 120874

2003-07-31

TUGADE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is basic that findings of facts of trial courts are accorded by appellate courts with great, if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage enjoyed by trial courts of observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of witnesses as they give their testimonies.[23] Trial courts have the unique advantage of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying --- the brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, the itching over-eagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one.[24] Indeed, assignment of values to declarations on the witness stand is best done by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh firsthand the testimony of a witness.[25]

GR No. 135919

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y FERNANDEZ

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Under Article 248[41] of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the consummated crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the crime.[42]

GR No. 121211

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. RONETO DEGAMO

PER CURIAM

In addition, complainant is entitled to the amount of P25,000.00 as and for exemplary damages[44] considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling; and to the amount of P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages[45] in lieu of actual damages, considering that complainant had to undergo psychiatric treatment but was not able to present proof of the expenses she incurred in her treatment.

GR Nos. 128378

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellants maintained that the incident was nothing more than a chance encounter between the victim and Rodriguez, and that the latter acted in self-defense.[26] They also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are, "beyond the course of natural events," and that the prosecution's evidence, in general, is "anchored on exaggerated testimonies and cannot definitely (sic) survive the crucible test of reason and certainty."[27] In other words, they assail the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses. Again, we hold that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying.[28] The findings of fact of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As a general rule, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which have been misinterpreted.[29]

GR Nos. 128378

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellants maintained that the incident was nothing more than a chance encounter between the victim and Rodriguez, and that the latter acted in self-defense.[26] They also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are, "beyond the course of natural events," and that the prosecution's evidence, in general, is "anchored on exaggerated testimonies and cannot definitely (sic) survive the crucible test of reason and certainty."[27] In other words, they assail the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses. Again, we hold that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying.[28] The findings of fact of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As a general rule, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which have been misinterpreted.[29]

GR No. 134940

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to actual damages, while Lita Balasabas testified that they incurred burial and other expenses resulting from the death of Syrel and Exor, no competent evidence was presented to prove her claim.[54] Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, a party is entitled to compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. However, under Article 2224 of the same Code, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. In the present case, the heirs of Syrel and Exor Balasabas clearly incurred funeral and burial expenses. Hence, we find that an award of P50,000.00 or (P25,000.00, for the death of each set of heirs of the victims) by way of temperate damages is justified.[55]

GR No. 141518

2003-04-29

PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or 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. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[44] As testified to by the widow of the deceased, the death of her husband brought grief and emotional suffering to their family.[45] Hence, they are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[46] Likewise, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the deceased justifies the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[47]

	GR NO. 168100 2007-11-20	PEOPLE v. MATEO DALEBA CARPIO, J.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant must further pay the heirs of Renato exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[11]
	GR No. 140278 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO PANGANIBAN, J.
The factual matters now raised by appellant have been passed upon by the RTC. As a rule, its findings deserve weight and respect.[11] The same is true as regards the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because it is the trial judge who hears them and observes their demeanor while testifying.[12] It is only when the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended some facts or circumstances of weight and influence[13] that these matters are re-opened for independent examination and review by appellate courts.
	GR No. 144598 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. RANIL DUETES CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for treachery in the killing, the trial court correctly appreciated its presence. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[32] From Mariaca's and Cabag's testimony that appellant and Duetes held the victim while Quijada struck the nape of the victim, the victim was rendered defenseless. There can be no mistaking then that the manner by which the victim was restrained and assaulted was deliberately and consciously adopted by his assailants to ensure his demise.
	GR No. 120874 2003-07-31	TUGADE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is basic that findings of facts of trial courts are accorded by appellate courts with great, if not conclusive effect. This is because of the unique advantage enjoyed by trial courts of observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of witnesses as they give their testimonies.[23] Trial courts have the unique advantage of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying --- the brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, the itching over-eagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one.[24] Indeed, assignment of values to declarations on the witness stand is best done by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh firsthand the testimony of a witness.[25]
	GR No. 135919 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y FERNANDEZ SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Under Article 248[41] of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the consummated crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the crime.[42]
	GR No. 121211 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. RONETO DEGAMO PER CURIAM
In addition, complainant is entitled to the amount of P25,000.00 as and for exemplary damages[44] considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling; and to the amount of P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages[45] in lieu of actual damages, considering that complainant had to undergo psychiatric treatment but was not able to present proof of the expenses she incurred in her treatment.
	GR Nos. 128378 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellants maintained that the incident was nothing more than a chance encounter between the victim and Rodriguez, and that the latter acted in self-defense.[26] They also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are, "beyond the course of natural events," and that the prosecution's evidence, in general, is "anchored on exaggerated testimonies and cannot definitely (sic) survive the crucible test of reason and certainty."[27] In other words, they assail the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses. Again, we hold that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying.[28] The findings of fact of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As a general rule, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which have been misinterpreted.[29]
	GR Nos. 128378 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. ROBERT GOMEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellants maintained that the incident was nothing more than a chance encounter between the victim and Rodriguez, and that the latter acted in self-defense.[26] They also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are, "beyond the course of natural events," and that the prosecution's evidence, in general, is "anchored on exaggerated testimonies and cannot definitely (sic) survive the crucible test of reason and certainty."[27] In other words, they assail the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses. Again, we hold that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying.[28] The findings of fact of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As a general rule, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which have been misinterpreted.[29]
	GR No. 134940 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. CATALINO MELENDRES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to actual damages, while Lita Balasabas testified that they incurred burial and other expenses resulting from the death of Syrel and Exor, no competent evidence was presented to prove her claim.[54] Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, a party is entitled to compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. However, under Article 2224 of the same Code, temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. In the present case, the heirs of Syrel and Exor Balasabas clearly incurred funeral and burial expenses. Hence, we find that an award of P50,000.00 or (P25,000.00, for the death of each set of heirs of the victims) by way of temperate damages is justified.[55]
	GR No. 141518 2003-04-29	PEOPLE v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or 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. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[44] As testified to by the widow of the deceased, the death of her husband brought grief and emotional suffering to their family.[45] Hence, they are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[46] Likewise, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the deceased justifies the award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[47]

PEOPLE v. EDWIN ALCODIA Y SIMON