Lawyerly

GR No. 188601

2010-06-29

VELASCO JR., J.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[46] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[47] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[48]

GR No. 173242

2008-09-17

PEOPLE v. ESPERIDION BALAIS

QUISUMBING, J.

In the face of positive identification, Balais' denial vanishes into thin air. Indeed denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defense. When there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[22]

GR NO. 169962

2007-07-12

PEOPLE v. RAUL CENAHONON

NACHURA, J.

Magaway and Kenneth identified both Cenahonon and Erdaje as the kidnappers in a police line-up the day following the kidnapping.[40] Following the "totality test rule" laid down in People of the Philippines v. Teehankee,[41] this out-of-court identification is admissible and reliable. Indeed, Magaway had sufficient time to familiarize himself with Cenahonon and Erdaje when he and Kenneth were taken on board the CRV, and more so with Erdaje when the latter collected the boodle money from him. There was a short interval of time between the abduction on November 25, 1999 and the police line-up identification on November 26, 1999. Kenneth Medina, the kidnap victim himself, and at his young age, reinforced Magaway's identification of Cenahonon and Erdaje as the abductors. It is natural for victims to strive to recall the faces of the culprits and how the crime was committed against them.[42]

GR No. 135619

2004-01-15

ADONIS ARADILLOS v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court likewise finds that conspiracy was not established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[42] Like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[43] Thus, it has been held that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[44]

GR No. 152285

2003-10-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE OBESO

PANGANIBAN, J.

We agree with appellant. It is true that for kidnapping to take place, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure;[15] neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged.[16] However, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.[17]

GR No. 137554

2003-10-01

PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION

PER CURIAM

it.[78] Appellants Mamarion's and Domingo's acts of monitoring the victim's activities, coordinating the abduction, handing the ransom note, collecting the ransom, and detaining Roberta Cokin; and the concerted acts of appellants Maclang and Harisco in giving instructions and providing funds for their operations, prove that they acted in concert in committing the crime. Appellants' individual participation, viewed in its totality, point to a joint purpose and criminal design. Thus, they are all equally liable given that in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[79] Appellant Mamarion questions the failure of the prosecution to present the money allegedly paid as ransom. On this score, it must be pointed out that the corpus delicti in the crime of kidnapping for ransom does not pertain to the ransom money itself. It is the fact

GR Nos. 133923-24

2003-07-30

PEOPLE v. JUANITO IBAÑEZ Y CARTICIANO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The testimony of the surviving victim, Felix Olanda. He recounted in detail the incident that occurred on October 17, 1996 which not only jibes with the confession of appellant but more significantly, he categorically identified the appellant as the person who hacked him and his wife who died by reason of said hacking. It is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants.[34] There is no reason for us to disbelieve Felix Olanda's testimony or to suspect his motives.

GR Nos. 145452-53

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. LARRY CARITATIVO

CORONA, J.

In the face of Edwin's testimony that the accused had made the admission, it becomes imperative for the latter to disprove it. His explanation that Edwin was coerced to testify against him is at best a futile attempt to prop a tottering defense." (emphasis ours) Moreover, the appellant failed to show any improper motive why Catalino Gonzales would testify falsely against him. The testimony of appellant's father that the reason why Catalino testified falsely against the appellant was because he (appellant's father) hacked Catalino's dog was unworthy of belief, being uncorroborated and self-serving. The allegation was hollow as nothing was offered to support it. When there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[61]

GR NO. 137182

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG

PER CURIAM

The rule in evidence, which the Court has always applied, is that positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. Denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defense.[57]

GR NO. 137182

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG

PER CURIAM

The conditions which purportedly created serious doubt on the ability of prosecution witnesses Alexander Saldaña and Americo Rejuso, Jr., to identify positively their abductors did not perdure throughout the duration of their captivity. The records bear out that Alexander and Americo both had a number of opportunities to see the faces of the appellants. They were transferred from one lair to another without blindfolds and often in broad daylight. These improved circumstances necessarily permitted both Alexander and Americo to see the faces of the appellants. Moreover, it must be remembered that Alexander was detained for six months. During this period, Alexander saw them, ate with them, and actually lived with them. Appellants Akmad Awal and Ramon Pasawilan have both acted as guards to Alexander many times: Akmad in Kabuntalan[58] and Ramon in the mountain hideout of Maganoy[59] as well as when Alexander was transferred to the hideout in the town proper of Maganoy.[60] For their part, the appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila Silongan, and Sacaria Alon guarded Alexander both in the mountain hideout of Maganoy and in Kabuntalan.[61] These instances, among many others, gave Alexander ample time to see and imprint their faces in his memory. We likewise note that as borne by the records, the kidnappers made little or no attempt to conceal their identities. In fact, they even told Alexander their names when he asked for them.[62] The positive identification Alexander and Americo made in open court[63] thus deserves much weight. We have held in People v. Bacungay,[64] that "it is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime."

GR Nos. 134823-25

2003-01-14

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO HAMTON

PER CURIAM

Q Were you able to observe to what direction they sped away? A They were going towards the direction of Acacia Lane."[24] These testimonies constitute persuasive and unassailable proof that all the appellants committed the crime of kidnapping. Certainly, the positive identification of them by the victim and his wife, who had ample opportunity to see and remember their faces, more than satisfies the judicial mind and conscience. It is natural for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime.[25] Hence, there is usually no reason for us to doubt their testimonies or to suspect their motives. The present witnesses had close contact with the kidnappers when the victim was abducted and his wife was hit with a gun. Further, the victim was held for ten (10) days, which was more than ample time for him to be familiar with them. His wife, on the other hand, was in constant communication with one of the appellants during the ransom payment negotiations. She again saw them during the actual ransom payment.

GR Nos. 130078-82

2002-10-04

PEOPLE v. MAXIMO DELMO Y ISLA

QUISUMBING, J.

Lapiz was watching John Anton who was lying on the floor face down.[85] Francisco then tied the hands of John Anton.[86] Meanwhile, Joanna Rose was seated on the sofa, tied up, blindfolded, and gagged.[87] Francisco then tied up Helen Grace.[88] After all the victims had been tied-up, the three appellants entered her parents' room, after which they went out, whispering to each other.[89] Maximo and Francisco then brought the female victims inside the master's bedroom. John Anton remained outside, guarded by Edmund.[90] Once inside the bedroom, Francisco inflicted multiple stab wounds on Nancy, Joanna Rose, Maria Angela, and Helen Grace.[91] John Anton, in turn, was fatally stabbed outside the master's bedroom, where Edmund was left guarding him. From the foregoing eyewitness testimony, it appears that the actions of Maximo, Edmund, and Francisco were concerted, even synchronized. There was commonality of purpose and action. From thereon, it is apparent that there was a conspiracy among the three appellants. When two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, but were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.[92] Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.[93] Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor

	GR No. 188601 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JO HNNY BAUTISTA Y BAUTISTA VELASCO JR., J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[46] Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.[47] It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[48]
	GR No. 173242 2008-09-17	PEOPLE v. ESPERIDION BALAIS QUISUMBING, J.
In the face of positive identification, Balais' denial vanishes into thin air. Indeed denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defense. When there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[22]
	GR NO. 169962 2007-07-12	PEOPLE v. RAUL CENAHONON NACHURA, J.
Magaway and Kenneth identified both Cenahonon and Erdaje as the kidnappers in a police line-up the day following the kidnapping.[40] Following the "totality test rule" laid down in People of the Philippines v. Teehankee,[41] this out-of-court identification is admissible and reliable. Indeed, Magaway had sufficient time to familiarize himself with Cenahonon and Erdaje when he and Kenneth were taken on board the CRV, and more so with Erdaje when the latter collected the boodle money from him. There was a short interval of time between the abduction on November 25, 1999 and the police line-up identification on November 26, 1999. Kenneth Medina, the kidnap victim himself, and at his young age, reinforced Magaway's identification of Cenahonon and Erdaje as the abductors. It is natural for victims to strive to recall the faces of the culprits and how the crime was committed against them.[42]
	GR No. 135619 2004-01-15	ADONIS ARADILLOS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court likewise finds that conspiracy was not established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[42] Like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[43] Thus, it has been held that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[44]
	GR No. 152285 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE OBESO PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with appellant. It is true that for kidnapping to take place, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure;[15] neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged.[16] However, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.[17]
	GR No. 137554 2003-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOHN MAMARION PER CURIAM
it.[78] Appellants Mamarion's and Domingo's acts of monitoring the victim's activities, coordinating the abduction, handing the ransom note, collecting the ransom, and detaining Roberta Cokin; and the concerted acts of appellants Maclang and Harisco in giving instructions and providing funds for their operations, prove that they acted in concert in committing the crime. Appellants' individual participation, viewed in its totality, point to a joint purpose and criminal design. Thus, they are all equally liable given that in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[79] Appellant Mamarion questions the failure of the prosecution to present the money allegedly paid as ransom. On this score, it must be pointed out that the corpus delicti in the crime of kidnapping for ransom does not pertain to the ransom money itself. It is the fact
	GR Nos. 133923-24 2003-07-30	PEOPLE v. JUANITO IBAÑEZ Y CARTICIANO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The testimony of the surviving victim, Felix Olanda. He recounted in detail the incident that occurred on October 17, 1996 which not only jibes with the confession of appellant but more significantly, he categorically identified the appellant as the person who hacked him and his wife who died by reason of said hacking. It is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants.[34] There is no reason for us to disbelieve Felix Olanda's testimony or to suspect his motives.
	GR Nos. 145452-53 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. LARRY CARITATIVO CORONA, J.
In the face of Edwin's testimony that the accused had made the admission, it becomes imperative for the latter to disprove it. His explanation that Edwin was coerced to testify against him is at best a futile attempt to prop a tottering defense." (emphasis ours) Moreover, the appellant failed to show any improper motive why Catalino Gonzales would testify falsely against him. The testimony of appellant's father that the reason why Catalino testified falsely against the appellant was because he (appellant's father) hacked Catalino's dog was unworthy of belief, being uncorroborated and self-serving. The allegation was hollow as nothing was offered to support it. When there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[61]
	GR NO. 137182 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG PER CURIAM
The rule in evidence, which the Court has always applied, is that positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. Denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defense.[57]
	GR NO. 137182 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG PER CURIAM
The conditions which purportedly created serious doubt on the ability of prosecution witnesses Alexander Saldaña and Americo Rejuso, Jr., to identify positively their abductors did not perdure throughout the duration of their captivity. The records bear out that Alexander and Americo both had a number of opportunities to see the faces of the appellants. They were transferred from one lair to another without blindfolds and often in broad daylight. These improved circumstances necessarily permitted both Alexander and Americo to see the faces of the appellants. Moreover, it must be remembered that Alexander was detained for six months. During this period, Alexander saw them, ate with them, and actually lived with them. Appellants Akmad Awal and Ramon Pasawilan have both acted as guards to Alexander many times: Akmad in Kabuntalan[58] and Ramon in the mountain hideout of Maganoy[59] as well as when Alexander was transferred to the hideout in the town proper of Maganoy.[60] For their part, the appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila Silongan, and Sacaria Alon guarded Alexander both in the mountain hideout of Maganoy and in Kabuntalan.[61] These instances, among many others, gave Alexander ample time to see and imprint their faces in his memory. We likewise note that as borne by the records, the kidnappers made little or no attempt to conceal their identities. In fact, they even told Alexander their names when he asked for them.[62] The positive identification Alexander and Americo made in open court[63] thus deserves much weight. We have held in People v. Bacungay,[64] that "it is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime."
	GR Nos. 134823-25 2003-01-14	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO HAMTON PER CURIAM
Q Were you able to observe to what direction they sped away? A They were going towards the direction of Acacia Lane."[24] These testimonies constitute persuasive and unassailable proof that all the appellants committed the crime of kidnapping. Certainly, the positive identification of them by the victim and his wife, who had ample opportunity to see and remember their faces, more than satisfies the judicial mind and conscience. It is natural for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime.[25] Hence, there is usually no reason for us to doubt their testimonies or to suspect their motives. The present witnesses had close contact with the kidnappers when the victim was abducted and his wife was hit with a gun. Further, the victim was held for ten (10) days, which was more than ample time for him to be familiar with them. His wife, on the other hand, was in constant communication with one of the appellants during the ransom payment negotiations. She again saw them during the actual ransom payment.
	GR Nos. 130078-82 2002-10-04	PEOPLE v. MAXIMO DELMO Y ISLA QUISUMBING, J.
Lapiz was watching John Anton who was lying on the floor face down.[85] Francisco then tied the hands of John Anton.[86] Meanwhile, Joanna Rose was seated on the sofa, tied up, blindfolded, and gagged.[87] Francisco then tied up Helen Grace.[88] After all the victims had been tied-up, the three appellants entered her parents' room, after which they went out, whispering to each other.[89] Maximo and Francisco then brought the female victims inside the master's bedroom. John Anton remained outside, guarded by Edmund.[90] Once inside the bedroom, Francisco inflicted multiple stab wounds on Nancy, Joanna Rose, Maria Angela, and Helen Grace.[91] John Anton, in turn, was fatally stabbed outside the master's bedroom, where Edmund was left guarding him. From the foregoing eyewitness testimony, it appears that the actions of Maximo, Edmund, and Francisco were concerted, even synchronized. There was commonality of purpose and action. From thereon, it is apparent that there was a conspiracy among the three appellants. When two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, but were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.[92] Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.[93] Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor

PEOPLE v. GERARDO BACUNGAY Y CAINDOY