Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CASTANITO GANO Y SAGUYONG

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR Nos. 131837-38 2002-04-02	PEOPLE v. C2C RODNEY T. DUMALAHAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Based on the facts proven and the allegations in the information, the circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle attended the killing. Notwithstanding the attendance of these aggravating circumstances, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the three accused. It is true that the dual killings were committed on December 18, 1985, before the suspension of the death penalty. When the 1987 Constitution took effect, the provision therein proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, being more favorable to the accused, could have been retroactive applied to them.[16] However, the cases at bar were decided by the trial court on October 7, 1997. In the interim, Republic Act No. 7569 took effect on January 1, 1994, reinstating the death penalty. The accused cannot be faulted for the delay in the disposition of the cases against them.
	GR No. 146664 2002-02-28	JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner should also be made to pay the heirs of the victim, Freddie Ganancial, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages,[55] in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court and the Court of Appeals as indemnity.[56] The purpose of making such an award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[57]
	GR No. 130523 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. GARIO ALBA QUISUMBING, J.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.- The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the information should state not only the designation of the offense and the acts and omissions constituting it but shall also specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Guided by the established rule that when a penal statute, whether substantive or remedial and procedural, is favorable to the accused, the courts shall give it a retroactive application.[34] Thus, we held that since the information in this case failed to specify treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, under the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, treachery has to be considered a generic aggravating circumstance only.
	GR No. 142870 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. DINDO PAJOTAL Y FETALCORIN PER CURIAM
The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is sustained, the same being in line with current case law.[33] The award of P26,000.00 as actual damages is also sustained as the amount duly proved and supported by receipts presented during the course of the trial. However, the trial court should have ordered accused-appellant to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P15,000.00, representing the amount the victim was carrying at the time of the crime and taken by accused-appellant and his co-accused. It was never established by any admissible evidence that any portion of this amount had been recovered.[34]
	GR No. 142870 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. DINDO PAJOTAL Y FETALCORIN PER CURIAM
The trial court should have awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 pursuant to Art. 2219 par. (1) in relation to Art. 2006 par. (3) of the Civil Code. This is in consonance with our recent rulings.[36] We also agree with the Solicitor General that the trial court should have awarded exemplary damages pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code. Said article allows the imposition of exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. As discussed, abuse of superior strength aggravated the commission of the crime in the case at bar. Therefore, an award of P20,000.00 to the heirs of the victim is in order.[37]
	GR Nos. 131864-65 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, though the same was not alleged in the information. In People v. Ramirez,[17] citing the case of People v. Gano,[18] the Court held that "pursuant to the amended provisions of Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances affecting the commission of the crime, must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if proven at the trial." This rule may be applied retroactively, because it is favorable to the accused. Thus, nighttime should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering that the same was not alleged in the information.
	GR No. 138022 2001-08-23	PEOPLE v. PEDRO FRANCISCO Y ADRIANO MENDOZA, J.
In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages should be allowed the heirs of Purita Santos Luey, considering that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.[56] The amount of P30,000.00 for temperate damages would be appropriate. In addition, in accordance with Art. 2219, in relation to Art. 2206, of the Civil Code, an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is likewise reasonable.[57]
	GR No. 139622 2001-07-31	PEOPLE v. PEDRO PERRERAS BELLOSILLO, J.
However, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant in light of our recent rulings in People v. Arrojado[23] and People v. Gano[24] where Secs. 8 and 9 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[25] were given retroactive application where favorable to the accused. The Rules now require that every complaint or information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances, otherwise the same cannot be properly appreciated. Since dwelling was not alleged in the Information, it cannot be considered to raise the penalty to death. Consequently, there being no more modifying circumstances to be appreciated, the penalty for this murder is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Art. 63 in relation to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659.
	GR No. 136094 2001-04-20	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD RAMIREZ Y ESPLANA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In imposing the supreme penalty of death, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and treachery which, however, were not alleged in the information. In People v. Gano,[24] it was held that pursuant to the amended provisions of Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9,[25] of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances, affecting the commission of the crime, must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if proven at the trial. Being favorable to the accused, the foregoing rule should be applied retroactively in this case. Accordingly, the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and treachery should not be appreciated against accused-appellant as they were not alleged in the information filed against him.