Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD RAMIREZ Y ESPLANA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 139297 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. RENATO PUNO, J.
As to the distance of her house from the room of Jovito, the Court finds reliable the testimony of Cherry on cross-examination that her house was directly in line with the room of Jovito and that there was nothing to obstruct her view thereof except the not so tall trees.[18] It is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and when the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted.[19]
	GR Nos. 137520-22 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BAROY PANGANIBAN, J.
Where rape is alleged and proven to have been committed with a deadly weapon and by two persons, it is held to be qualified rape (due to the use of such weapon) with the aggravating circumstance of superior strength (there being two rapists acting in concert).[35] However, like nighttime and confederation, the use of superior strength was not alleged in the Information. Under the present Rules,[36] aggravating circumstances must be alleged; otherwise, they cannot be appreciated. Being favorable to the accused, this new procedure may be given retroactive effect.[37]
	GR No. 141125 2002-02-28	PEOPLE v. JEFFREY GARCIA Y CARAGAY PER CURIAM
As regards the other three acts of rape, accused-appellant can only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength and motor vehicle. However, these were not alleged in the information. Under the amended provisions of Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if proven at the trial. Being favorable to accused-appellant, this rule should be applied retroactively in this case. [44] Hence, there being no aggravating circumstance that may be appreciated, and with no mitigating circumstance, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be applied, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 140759 2002-01-24	PEOPLE v. JACINTO NARVAEZ CARPIO, J.
A: Yes, sir. Q: In relation to the four (4) accused, where are they? A: They were in front of the one carrying the flashlight."[30] The illumination coming from the flashlight came from behind the assailants and was most probably pointed towards the ground to light the way of the assailants. The most that Mendoza could have seen in the surrounding darkness at a distance of 70 meters would be the silhouettes of the assailants. Visibility is a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitness could identify the perpetrators of a crime.[31]
	GR Nos. 131864-65 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, though the same was not alleged in the information. In People v. Ramirez,[17] citing the case of People v. Gano,[18] the Court held that "pursuant to the amended provisions of Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances affecting the commission of the crime, must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if proven at the trial." This rule may be applied retroactively, because it is favorable to the accused. Thus, nighttime should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering that the same was not alleged in the information.
	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]