Lawyerly

GR No. 161308

2014-01-15

BERSAMIN, J.

The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino.[15] Hence, the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardo's guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the RTC, like other trial courts, clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used was not indispensable considering that the finding of guilt was based on other evidence proving his commission of the crime.[16]

GR No. 180169

2009-02-27

PEOPLE v. AGUSTINO TAMOLON

NACHURA, J.

Indeed, denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated.[23] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[24]

GR No. 172869

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO

QUISUMBING, J.

Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.[20] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[21] Appellant's own evidence shows that he was in the immediate environs when the incident occurred. For he stated that he was just in his own house, barely three meters away from the house of the victim, Estelita.[22]

GR No. 147231

2004-02-18

PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

We agree with the trial court's appreciation of the presence of qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It is settled that there is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, because in such cases the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense.[21]

GR Nos. 140514-15

2003-09-30

PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO

QUISUMBING, J.

After going over the transcripts of the witnesses' testimonies, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. With respect to the statements of Gumpic, we agree with the Solicitor General that alleged inconsistencies refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime. It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble.[84] An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[85]

GR No. 126281

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

AZCUNA, J.

In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is Homicide, not Murder.[70] The penalty therefor, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal. Considering the attendant mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period, pursuant to Article 64 (2) of the aforesaid Code.[71] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant's sentence will consist of a minimum that is anywhere within the full range of prision mayor, and a maximum which is anywhere within reclusion temporal in its minimum period. We hereby fix it to be from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

GR Nos. 145452-53

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. LARRY CARITATIVO

CORONA, J.

It is an established rule that treachery attends the killing where the accused attacks the victim while the latter is asleep and unable to defend himself.[85] Obviously, a sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself, take flight or avoid the assault, thus ensuring that the crime is successfully executed without any risk to the attacker.

GR No. 140897

2003-02-19

PEOPLE v. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO

QUISUMBING, J.

Evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[45] Such proof must be based on external acts that are not merely suspicious but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate planning. The evidence must show the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient.[46] Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.[47]

GR No. 146687

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[31] In this case, the two elements of treachery are not present, i.e. (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, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[33] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[34] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.

GR No. 146687

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Needless to state, his surrender can hardly be deemed spontaneous. In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is Homicide and not Murder.[48] The penalty therefor, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is Reclusion Temporal, to be imposed in its medium period considering that

	GR No. 161308 2014-01-15	RICARDO MEDINA v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino.[15] Hence, the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardo's guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the RTC, like other trial courts, clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used was not indispensable considering that the finding of guilt was based on other evidence proving his commission of the crime.[16]
	GR No. 180169 2009-02-27	PEOPLE v. AGUSTINO TAMOLON NACHURA, J.
Indeed, denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution, because it can easily be fabricated.[23] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[24]
	GR No. 172869 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO QUISUMBING, J.
Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.[20] For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[21] Appellant's own evidence shows that he was in the immediate environs when the incident occurred. For he stated that he was just in his own house, barely three meters away from the house of the victim, Estelita.[22]
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We agree with the trial court's appreciation of the presence of qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It is settled that there is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, because in such cases the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense.[21]
	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
After going over the transcripts of the witnesses' testimonies, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. With respect to the statements of Gumpic, we agree with the Solicitor General that alleged inconsistencies refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime. It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble.[84] An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[85]
	GR No. 126281 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO AZCUNA, J.
In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is Homicide, not Murder.[70] The penalty therefor, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal. Considering the attendant mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period, pursuant to Article 64 (2) of the aforesaid Code.[71] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant's sentence will consist of a minimum that is anywhere within the full range of prision mayor, and a maximum which is anywhere within reclusion temporal in its minimum period. We hereby fix it to be from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
	GR Nos. 145452-53 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. LARRY CARITATIVO CORONA, J.
It is an established rule that treachery attends the killing where the accused attacks the victim while the latter is asleep and unable to defend himself.[85] Obviously, a sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself, take flight or avoid the assault, thus ensuring that the crime is successfully executed without any risk to the attacker.
	GR No. 140897 2003-02-19	PEOPLE v. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO QUISUMBING, J.
Evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[45] Such proof must be based on external acts that are not merely suspicious but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate planning. The evidence must show the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient.[46] Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.[47]
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[31] In this case, the two elements of treachery are not present, i.e. (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, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[33] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[34] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Needless to state, his surrender can hardly be deemed spontaneous. In the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is Homicide and not Murder.[48] The penalty therefor, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is Reclusion Temporal, to be imposed in its medium period considering that

PEOPLE v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ