Lawyerly

GR No. 214883

2015-09-02

MENDOZA, J.

Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the reasonableness of the means employed by Cristina. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required.[26] What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the accused is exposed, and the instinct more than reason, that moves or impels his defense; and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent danger of such injury.[27]

GR No. 199735

2012-10-24

PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO

VELASCO JR., J.

This is in consonance with the dictum in Criminal Law that the existence of aggravating circumstances must be based on positive and conclusive proof, and not merely on hypothetical facts no matter how truthful the suppositions and presumptions may seem.[45] Aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty imposed must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged as criminal offense.[46]

GR No. 191913

2012-03-21

SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Supporting petitioner's claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia.[19] In People v. Catbagan,[20] We aptly held: The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor. Whether or not the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.

GR No. 148810

2003-11-18

PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

By invoking self-defense, appellant must prove: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[13] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[14]

GR No. 131915

2003-09-03

PEOPLE v. EDDIE LACHICA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In the same vein, loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded to the victim's heirs in the absence of competent proof thereof. While Melchor testified on the victim's income, the same could not serve as a basis for lost earnings. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross, income.[44]

GR No. 149784

2003-07-14

PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased in an impulse to defend himself, the onus probandi rests upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that: [1] he is not the unlawful aggressor; [2] there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and [3] he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[10]

GR No. 149784

2003-07-14

PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[20] It must be borne in mind that qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty imposed must be based on positive or conclusive proof, not mere suppositions or speculations,[21] and must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself.[22] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23]

GR No. 140872

2003-06-23

PEOPLE v. PABLITO INGGO Y TAMBULA

QUISUMBING, J.

The award of damages also needs modification. The award of consequential damages in the amount of P500,000 is deleted for lack of factual basis. Instead, we award in favor of the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.[33] The award of moral damages is also reduced from P100,000 to P50,000, consistent with our recent case law.[34] In addition, we award another P25,000 as temperate damages[35] considering that it has been shown that the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof was not sufficiently established.

GR No. 126281

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

AZCUNA, J.

Coming now to the matter of damages, we affirm the award of actual damages in the amount of P22,050, as these are duly substantiated by receipts and appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is likewise sustained, pursuant to controlling case law.[72] However, we increase the award of moral damages to a more reasonable amount of P30,000, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[73]

GR No. 140897

2003-02-19

PEOPLE v. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO

QUISUMBING, J.

We find for the appellee. To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[38]

	GR No. 214883 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. CRISTINA SAMSON MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the reasonableness of the means employed by Cristina. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required.[26] What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the accused is exposed, and the instinct more than reason, that moves or impels his defense; and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent danger of such injury.[27]
	GR No. 199735 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO VELASCO JR., J.
This is in consonance with the dictum in Criminal Law that the existence of aggravating circumstances must be based on positive and conclusive proof, and not merely on hypothetical facts no matter how truthful the suppositions and presumptions may seem.[45] Aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty imposed must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged as criminal offense.[46]
	GR No. 191913 2012-03-21	SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Supporting petitioner's claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia.[19] In People v. Catbagan,[20] We aptly held: The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor. Whether or not the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.
	GR No. 148810 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. HEVER PAULINO Y BIYAYA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
By invoking self-defense, appellant must prove: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[13] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[14]
	GR No. 131915 2003-09-03	PEOPLE v. EDDIE LACHICA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the same vein, loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded to the victim's heirs in the absence of competent proof thereof. While Melchor testified on the victim's income, the same could not serve as a basis for lost earnings. Indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven; and a self-serving statement, being unreliable, is not enough. For lost income to be recovered, there must be an unbiased proof of the deceased's average, not just gross, income.[44]
	GR No. 149784 2003-07-14	PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased in an impulse to defend himself, the onus probandi rests upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that: [1] he is not the unlawful aggressor; [2] there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and [3] he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[10]
	GR No. 149784 2003-07-14	PEOPLE v. CAMILO ANSUS Y DENIEGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.[20] It must be borne in mind that qualifying and aggravating circumstances which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty imposed must be based on positive or conclusive proof, not mere suppositions or speculations,[21] and must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself.[22] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23]
	GR No. 140872 2003-06-23	PEOPLE v. PABLITO INGGO Y TAMBULA QUISUMBING, J.
The award of damages also needs modification. The award of consequential damages in the amount of P500,000 is deleted for lack of factual basis. Instead, we award in favor of the victim's heirs the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.[33] The award of moral damages is also reduced from P100,000 to P50,000, consistent with our recent case law.[34] In addition, we award another P25,000 as temperate damages[35] considering that it has been shown that the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof was not sufficiently established.
	GR No. 126281 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO AZCUNA, J.
Coming now to the matter of damages, we affirm the award of actual damages in the amount of P22,050, as these are duly substantiated by receipts and appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is likewise sustained, pursuant to controlling case law.[72] However, we increase the award of moral damages to a more reasonable amount of P30,000, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[73]
	GR No. 140897 2003-02-19	PEOPLE v. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO QUISUMBING, J.
We find for the appellee. To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[38]

PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL