Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARNEL MATARO Y ELIZAGA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 141644 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO PINEDA Y MANALO CARPIO, J.
The appeal is meritorious. In overturning the ruling of the trial court, we follow the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties.[14]
	GR Nos. 149366-67 2004-05-27	PEOPLE OF PHIILPPINES v. FLORENTINO ESCULTOR CARPIO, J.
The Court has reviewed the records of this case and has found appellant's contentions partly meritorious. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties.[10]
	GR No. 132895 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH CASTILLO PER CURIAM
We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including those not raised by the parties.[25] This becomes even more imperative in cases where the penalty imposed is death.
	GR Nos. 137542-43 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. REYNAN SANTIAGO Y CASTILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant's contentions must fail. The inconsistencies adverted to by the appellant are trivial and insignificant and refer only to minor details. Time and again, we have steadfastly ruled that inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[14] Furthermore, we cannot expect the testimonies of different witnesses to be completely identical and to coincide with each other since they have different impressions and recollections of the incident.
	GR Nos. 131864-65 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While the testimony of the victim's widow that the death of her husband caused her grief and sorrow justifies the award of moral damages, the award of P300,000.00 must, however, be reduced to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[28]
	GR No. 132384 2001-09-21	PEOPLE v. MARLON GADIA MENDOZA, J.
With respect to the award of damages, we find the trial court's award of P24,295.50 to be excessive. Of this amount, only the hospitalization and funeral expenses in the respective amounts of P2,500.00 (Exh. B)[47] and P2,800.00,[48] or a total of P5,300.00, were covered by receipts. Thus, only these amounts, which appear to have been actually incurred in connection with the death of the victim, represent the actual damages to be awarded in favor of his heirs.[49] Accused-appellant should likewise be ordered to pay P7,000.00 as attorney's fees[50] since the victim's sister testified that such amount was paid by her family for the prosecution of this case and the same is duly evidenced by a receipt issued by counsel.[51] The award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the wrongful death of the victim must be upheld as it is in accord with current case law.[52] In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages should be given to the heirs of the victim as fixed by our recent rulings. The purpose of making such an award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for injuries to their feelings.[53]
	GR No. 116488 2001-05-31	PEOPLE v. AARON FLORES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The testimony of Jerry Manlangit does not prove any of the elements of the crime of arbitrary detention. Neither does it support nor corroborate the testimony of his father, Carlito, for they dealt on a different set of facts. Jerry Manlangit did not see any of accused-appellant apprehend or detain Samson Sayam. He did not even see if accused-appellant Flores really inspected the residence certificate and barangay clearance of Samson Sayam. The rest of his testimony comprised of hearsay evidence,[22] which has no probative value.[23] In summary, Jerry Manlangit's testimony failed to establish that accused-appellants were guilty of arbitrary detention.