Lawyerly

GR NO. 169747

2007-07-27

BAN HUA U. FLOREZ v. UBS MARKETING CORPORATION

GARCIA, J.

So Ordered. [25] (Italization and emphasis in the original.) In net effect, then, the SEC en banc, pursuant to its July 17, 2002 Order, strayed from and varied the final and executory disposition in SEC- AC No. 520 (SEC Case No. 3328), which, needless to stress, is embodied in its December 21, 1995 Order, as modified by its June 24, 1996 Resolution. The July 17, 2002 is a nullity, therefore. It cannot be overemphasized that a judgment is the foundation of an order of execution. Accordingly, an execution must conform to and be warranted by the judgment on which it was issued.[26] Execution is void if it does not strictly conform with every essential particular of the judgment rendered.[27]

GR NO. 172870

2006-09-22

PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant could only offer denial in his defense. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[40]

GR No. 132146

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. DANTE GAUFO Y DILAO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

As regards appellant's second assigned error, we agree with his contention that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death. The trial court considered the use of a piece of wood as a deadly weapon and, therefore, a qualifying circumstance. Suffice it to state that, as a rule, in order that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance may be appreciated, it must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial.[39] Here, no such circumstance has been alleged in the Information which justifies the imposition of death. Thus, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua as provided in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier.

GR No. 130684

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We fully agree with the trial court's finding that "Jovita was motivated to come to court in order to vindicate her honor and seek justice so that the accused may be made to answer for his misdeeds."[29] For, as we have consistently held, a rape victim would not come out in the open and go through the humiliation of a public trial if her motive is not to seek redress and obtain justice.[30]

GR No. 130684

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Considering that appellant committed the crime with a qualifying circumstance, the use of a bolo, a deadly weapon,[34] the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier. Corollarily, Article 63 of the same Code provides:"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

GR Nos. 122114-17

2004-01-20

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO LIMOS Y DE VERA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Considering that appellant committed the crimes with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance,[32] the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier. Corollarily, Article 63 of the same Code provides:"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

GR No. 130662

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In line with current jurisprudence, where, as here, the death penalty is not imposed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[24] We likewise award the victim moral damages which is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[25] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter grandfathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[26]

GR No. 128882

2003-10-02

PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In People vs. Alfredo Baroy,[9] we held: "Where no aggravating circumstance is alleged in the information and proven during the trial, the crime of rape through the use of a deadly weapon may be penalized only with reclusion perpetua, not death."

GR Nos. 146685-86

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellant only raised the defense of denial. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the categorical and positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused which are uncorroborated by reliable and independent evidence, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[13]

GR No. 124474 & 139972-78

2003-01-28

PEOPLE v. SILVERIO MONTEMAYOR

AZCUNA, J.

"4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonable allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation." The prosecution failed to establish any aggravating circumstance. While nighttime was alleged in the Informations, it does not appear that it was purposely sought by or afforded some degree of impunity to appellant.[54] The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime with nothing more than that does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance.[55] Neither can the alleged abuse of superior strength be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. No proof was offered that superior strength was deliberately taken advantage of.[56]

GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243

2003-01-22

PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent his defense of denial and alibi, accused-appellant failed to present convincing proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during the dates and times when these separate acts of rape were committed on the three minor private complainants. It appears that it only takes an hour to travel by public transportation from Puerto Princesa City to Aborlan, and vice versa.[34] At any rate, accused-appellant's bare denials, which are unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, are not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the commission of the crimes. When the evidence convincingly connects the crime and the culprit, the probative value of denial becomes quite negligible.[35]

GR No. 145719

2002-08-20

PEOPLE v. RAUL HAROVILLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

too insignificant to lessen the probative value of his positive testimony. His statement that he followed Linda and the victim after they went out of the dance hall is sufficient, though he had no knowledge where the couple planned to proceed. What matters is that he was consistent and certain as to who shot the victim and the circumstances surrounding the execution thereof. Likewise, the inability of Franco to account for the precise whereabouts of the victim from the time he entered the dance hall at 6:00 in the evening of January 1, 1994 up to and before 2:00 a.m. of January 2, 1994, does not have any significant impact on the categorical, straightforward, and positive identification of accused-appellant as one of the culprits. It bears stressing that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their testimonies, as they even serve to strengthen rather than destroy one's credibility.[10] Clearly, the thrust of the instant appeal is essentially on the issue of credibility. The settled rule is that assignment of values to the testimony of a witness is virtually left, almost entirely, to the trial court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the

	GR NO. 169747 2007-07-27	BAN HUA U. FLOREZ v. UBS MARKETING CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
So Ordered. [25] (Italization and emphasis in the original.) In net effect, then, the SEC en banc, pursuant to its July 17, 2002 Order, strayed from and varied the final and executory disposition in SEC- AC No. 520 (SEC Case No. 3328), which, needless to stress, is embodied in its December 21, 1995 Order, as modified by its June 24, 1996 Resolution. The July 17, 2002 is a nullity, therefore. It cannot be overemphasized that a judgment is the foundation of an order of execution. Accordingly, an execution must conform to and be warranted by the judgment on which it was issued.[26] Execution is void if it does not strictly conform with every essential particular of the judgment rendered.[27]
	GR NO. 172870 2006-09-22	PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant could only offer denial in his defense. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[40]
	GR No. 132146 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. DANTE GAUFO Y DILAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As regards appellant's second assigned error, we agree with his contention that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death. The trial court considered the use of a piece of wood as a deadly weapon and, therefore, a qualifying circumstance. Suffice it to state that, as a rule, in order that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance may be appreciated, it must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial.[39] Here, no such circumstance has been alleged in the Information which justifies the imposition of death. Thus, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua as provided in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier.
	GR No. 130684 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We fully agree with the trial court's finding that "Jovita was motivated to come to court in order to vindicate her honor and seek justice so that the accused may be made to answer for his misdeeds."[29] For, as we have consistently held, a rape victim would not come out in the open and go through the humiliation of a public trial if her motive is not to seek redress and obtain justice.[30]
	GR No. 130684 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO MANAMBAY Y DIAMSON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Considering that appellant committed the crime with a qualifying circumstance, the use of a bolo, a deadly weapon,[34] the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier. Corollarily, Article 63 of the same Code provides:"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
	GR Nos. 122114-17 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO LIMOS Y DE VERA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Considering that appellant committed the crimes with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance,[32] the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, quoted earlier. Corollarily, Article 63 of the same Code provides:"Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
	GR No. 130662 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. SERGIO ABON Y ESTEBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In line with current jurisprudence, where, as here, the death penalty is not imposed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[24] We likewise award the victim moral damages which is fixed at P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis thereof.[25] In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to deter grandfathers with aberrant sexual behavior.[26]
	GR No. 128882 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. JOEL AYUDA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In People vs. Alfredo Baroy,[9] we held: "Where no aggravating circumstance is alleged in the information and proven during the trial, the crime of rape through the use of a deadly weapon may be penalized only with reclusion perpetua, not death."
	GR Nos. 146685-86 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellant only raised the defense of denial. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the categorical and positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused which are uncorroborated by reliable and independent evidence, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[13]
	GR No. 124474 & 139972-78 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. SILVERIO MONTEMAYOR AZCUNA, J.
"4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonable allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation." The prosecution failed to establish any aggravating circumstance. While nighttime was alleged in the Informations, it does not appear that it was purposely sought by or afforded some degree of impunity to appellant.[54] The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime with nothing more than that does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance.[55] Neither can the alleged abuse of superior strength be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. No proof was offered that superior strength was deliberately taken advantage of.[56]
	GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243 2003-01-22	PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent his defense of denial and alibi, accused-appellant failed to present convincing proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during the dates and times when these separate acts of rape were committed on the three minor private complainants. It appears that it only takes an hour to travel by public transportation from Puerto Princesa City to Aborlan, and vice versa.[34] At any rate, accused-appellant's bare denials, which are unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, are not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the commission of the crimes. When the evidence convincingly connects the crime and the culprit, the probative value of denial becomes quite negligible.[35]
	GR No. 145719 2002-08-20	PEOPLE v. RAUL HAROVILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
too insignificant to lessen the probative value of his positive testimony. His statement that he followed Linda and the victim after they went out of the dance hall is sufficient, though he had no knowledge where the couple planned to proceed. What matters is that he was consistent and certain as to who shot the victim and the circumstances surrounding the execution thereof. Likewise, the inability of Franco to account for the precise whereabouts of the victim from the time he entered the dance hall at 6:00 in the evening of January 1, 1994 up to and before 2:00 a.m. of January 2, 1994, does not have any significant impact on the categorical, straightforward, and positive identification of accused-appellant as one of the culprits. It bears stressing that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their testimonies, as they even serve to strengthen rather than destroy one's credibility.[10] Clearly, the thrust of the instant appeal is essentially on the issue of credibility. The settled rule is that assignment of values to the testimony of a witness is virtually left, almost entirely, to the trial court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BAROY