Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TEODULO VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 194612 2014-01-27	PEOPLE v. FLORO MANIGO Y MACALUA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Insofar as the alleged inconsistency between "AAA's" statements in her affidavit and testimony in open court is concerned, it has often been noted by this Court that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more weight since affidavits being taken ex-parte are usually incomplete and inaccurate.[15] Besides, the inconsistency respecting the physical appearance of appellant has no bearing on the principal question of whether appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. Neither the failure of "AAA" to describe the tricycle will dent her credibility. Suffice it to say that these matters are not so material in the prosecution of the crime.
	GR No. 188608 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES PEREZ, J.
In recognition of the credibility of these witnesses, the presumption that police officers have performed their duties in good faith is correctly applied in this case. Appellants failed to adduce any ill or improper motive on the part of the NARCOM operatives. In fact, Roding admitted that it was his first time to meet them and neither does he have any misunderstanding with them.[27] Absent any clear and convincing evidence that the NARCOM operatives had ill or improper motive to falsely testify against appellants, their testimonies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the buy-bust operation must be accorded full faith and credit.[28]
	GR No. 178062 2010-09-08	PEOPLE v. ABDUL AMINOLA Y OMAR VELASCO JR., J.
Anent accused-appellants' pecuniary liability, we modify the damages awarded by the lower court. Civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 is given without need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of the accused's responsibility for it.[28] If, however, the commission of robbery with homicide is attended by a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as here, that requires the imposition of the death penalty (such as the use of an unlicensed firearm), the civil indemnity for the victim shall be PhP 75,000.[29] Moral damages awarded in the amount of PhP 50,000 must also be increased to PhP 75,000 pursuant to current jurisprudence.[30]
	GR No. 171526 2010-09-01	RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
"The concerted manner [in which the petitioner and his] companions perpetrated the crime showed beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. Where conspiracy is established, it matters not who among the accused actually shot and killed the victim. The consistent doctrinal rule is that when a homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof that they had endeavored to prevent the killing."[26] There was no evidence adduced in this case that petitioner attempted to prevent his companions from shooting the victim. "Thus, regardless of the acts individually performed by [the petitioner] and his co-accused, and applying the basic principle in conspiracy that the `act of one is the act of all,' [the petitioner] is guilty as a co-conspirator. Being co-conspirators, the criminal liabilities of the [petitioner and his co-accused] are one and the same."[27]
	GR No. 188124 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS PEREZ, J.
Dianne's testimony is doubtful to say the least. This Court is mindful of the rule that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more weight since affidavits being taken ex-parte are usually incomplete and inaccurate. Corollary to this is the doctrine that, where the discrepancies are irreconcilable and unexplained and they dwell on material points, such inconsistencies necessarily discredit the veracity of the witness' claim.[24] The second rule is apt to the case at bar.
	GR No. 185209 2010-06-28	PEOPLE v. RENE BARON Y TANGAROCAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
In this case, the presence of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty. However, in view of the subsequent passage of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines," we are mandated to impose on the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.[22]