Lawyerly

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

BRION, J.

Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. Nevertheless, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[178] Conspiracy exists among the offenders when their concerted acts show the same purpose or common design, and are united in its execution.[179]

GR No. 151258

2012-02-01

ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

SERENO, J.

The right of the accused to present evidence is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution itself.[42] Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ... shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel..." This constitutional right includes the right to present evidence in one's defense,[43] as well as the right to be present and defend oneself in person at every stage of the proceedings.[44]

GR NO. 172184

2007-07-10

NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is not unusual for a judge who did not wholly try a case to decide it on the basis of the records on hand after the trial judge who had heard almost entirely the testimony of the witnesses died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. Relative thereto, we have held in several cases that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment; and that for the same reason, the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.[33] Even though the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not enough reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses.[34] It may be true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[35] The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.[36] That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[37]

GR NO. 159058

2006-05-03

PEOPLE v. RONAN P. DULANAS

QUISUMBING, J.

During summary bail hearings, it may be stressed, the court does not sit to try the merits or enter into any extended inquiry on the weight of the evidence for or against the accused. Nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be offered and admitted.[49]

GR NO. 160709

2005-02-23

NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

While it is true that there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by a precise mathematical calculation,[28] we hold that the trial court's award of moral damages of P50,000.00 for the death of Ray Castillon is in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[29]

GR No. 133027

2004-03-04

PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Appellant Ruel Bibohan had sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential Action Center seeking help to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims that he was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to testify in court. He insists that he is innocent of the crime.[84] Suffice it to be stated that indeed our Constitution provides that an accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel.[85] Due process of law in judicial proceedings requires that he must be given a chance to be heard and must be afforded a qualified and competent representation.[86] Where it appears that a counsel de oficio resorted to procedural shortcuts that amounted to inadequate counseling, the Court will strike down the proceedings in order to promote a judicious dispensation of justice.[87] Without hesitation, a decision would be rendered void for lack of due process if a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.[88]

GR Nos. 144972-73

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS

PER CURIAM

The judge who was not present at the trial can rely on the evidence on record including the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearings of the case.[27] Here, the judge who penned the decision found that Rhoda's testimony was given in "a straightforward and convincing manner, and not rehearsed or coached." It was noted in the transcript of stenographic notes that Rhoda cried while testifying. When asked to identify her attacker, she pointed to appellant, then burst into tears. This caused the trial court to call a recess to allow the victim to regain her composure and recollection.[28]

GR No. 146247

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON

BELLOSILLO, J.

therefor.[29] The heirs are also entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2206 of the New Civil Code on account of the mental anguish which they suffered, and the amount of P50,000.00 is considered reasonable according to existing jurisprudence.[30] WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the court a quo finding the accused EDGAR DAWATON guilty of MURDER qualified by treachery is AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. The accused is ordered to

GR No. 133267

2002-08-08

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO PERALTA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) following jurisprudence.[94] We also reduce the amount of actual damages to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for this was the only expense evidenced by a receipt.[95]

GR No. 114944

2002-05-29

MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Furthermore, it appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge. Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings.[17]

GR No. 137518

2002-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM

MENDOZA, J.

Again, we find the foregoing contention to be without merit. We hold that the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[28] Treachery exists when any of the crimes against person is committed with the employment of means, methods, or forms that tend directly and specially to insure its execution such that the offender faces no risk that may arise from the defense which the offended party might make.[29]

GR No. 139330

2002-02-06

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SANSAET Y SANTOJALA

PARDO, J.

The accused-appellants argued that the judge who wrote the decision did not try the case and hence was not able to observe first hand the testimonies of the witnesses. Hence, when a question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, Judge Nery G. Duremdes not having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, can not discern and gauge if said witnesses were telling the truth. However, we have held in several cases that "the decision of a judge who did not try the case is not by that reason alone erroneous."[9] The fact that the judge who tried the case was different from the judge who penned the decision does not in any way taint the same. Indeed, "the efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial, unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion in the factual findings reached by him."[10] "Moreover, a judge who was not present during the trial can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law."[11]

GR No. 133799

2002-02-05

PEOPLE v. GEORGINO BONIFACIO Y MENDOZA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, the trial court should have awarded moral damages to the victim's heirs commensurate to their emotional suffering. An award of P50,000.00 is proper and reasonable under current case law.[9]

GR Nos. 115236-37

2002-01-29

PEOPLE v. BRYAN FERDINAND DY Y LA MADRID

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, in the matter of the damages awarded by the trial court, this Court reduces the award of moral damages from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages are not awarded to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim or his family as the proximate result of the wrongful act. The award is not meant to enrich the victim at the expense of the accused.[45]

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. Nevertheless, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[178] Conspiracy exists among the offenders when their concerted acts show the same purpose or common design, and are united in its execution.[179]
	GR No. 151258 2012-02-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The right of the accused to present evidence is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution itself.[42] Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ... shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel..." This constitutional right includes the right to present evidence in one's defense,[43] as well as the right to be present and defend oneself in person at every stage of the proceedings.[44]
	GR NO. 172184 2007-07-10	NESTOR B. DECASA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is not unusual for a judge who did not wholly try a case to decide it on the basis of the records on hand after the trial judge who had heard almost entirely the testimony of the witnesses died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. Relative thereto, we have held in several cases that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment; and that for the same reason, the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.[33] Even though the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not enough reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses.[34] It may be true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[35] The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.[36] That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[37]
	GR NO. 159058 2006-05-03	PEOPLE v. RONAN P. DULANAS QUISUMBING, J.
During summary bail hearings, it may be stressed, the court does not sit to try the merits or enter into any extended inquiry on the weight of the evidence for or against the accused. Nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be offered and admitted.[49]
	GR NO. 160709 2005-02-23	NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While it is true that there can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by a precise mathematical calculation,[28] we hold that the trial court's award of moral damages of P50,000.00 for the death of Ray Castillon is in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence.[29]
	GR No. 133027 2004-03-04	PEOPLE v. PAUL TAGANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appellant Ruel Bibohan had sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential Action Center seeking help to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims that he was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to testify in court. He insists that he is innocent of the crime.[84] Suffice it to be stated that indeed our Constitution provides that an accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel.[85] Due process of law in judicial proceedings requires that he must be given a chance to be heard and must be afforded a qualified and competent representation.[86] Where it appears that a counsel de oficio resorted to procedural shortcuts that amounted to inadequate counseling, the Court will strike down the proceedings in order to promote a judicious dispensation of justice.[87] Without hesitation, a decision would be rendered void for lack of due process if a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.[88]
	GR Nos. 144972-73 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO JUNAS PER CURIAM
The judge who was not present at the trial can rely on the evidence on record including the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearings of the case.[27] Here, the judge who penned the decision found that Rhoda's testimony was given in "a straightforward and convincing manner, and not rehearsed or coached." It was noted in the transcript of stenographic notes that Rhoda cried while testifying. When asked to identify her attacker, she pointed to appellant, then burst into tears. This caused the trial court to call a recess to allow the victim to regain her composure and recollection.[28]
	GR No. 146247 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON BELLOSILLO, J.
therefor.[29] The heirs are also entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2206 of the New Civil Code on account of the mental anguish which they suffered, and the amount of P50,000.00 is considered reasonable according to existing jurisprudence.[30] WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the court a quo finding the accused EDGAR DAWATON guilty of MURDER qualified by treachery is AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. The accused is ordered to
	GR No. 133267 2002-08-08	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO PERALTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) following jurisprudence.[94] We also reduce the amount of actual damages to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for this was the only expense evidenced by a receipt.[95]
	GR No. 114944 2002-05-29	MANUEL C. ROXAS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, it appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge. Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings.[17]
	GR No. 137518 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM MENDOZA, J.
Again, we find the foregoing contention to be without merit. We hold that the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[28] Treachery exists when any of the crimes against person is committed with the employment of means, methods, or forms that tend directly and specially to insure its execution such that the offender faces no risk that may arise from the defense which the offended party might make.[29]
	GR No. 139330 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SANSAET Y SANTOJALA PARDO, J.
The accused-appellants argued that the judge who wrote the decision did not try the case and hence was not able to observe first hand the testimonies of the witnesses. Hence, when a question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, Judge Nery G. Duremdes not having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, can not discern and gauge if said witnesses were telling the truth. However, we have held in several cases that "the decision of a judge who did not try the case is not by that reason alone erroneous."[9] The fact that the judge who tried the case was different from the judge who penned the decision does not in any way taint the same. Indeed, "the efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial, unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion in the factual findings reached by him."[10] "Moreover, a judge who was not present during the trial can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law."[11]
	GR No. 133799 2002-02-05	PEOPLE v. GEORGINO BONIFACIO Y MENDOZA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, the trial court should have awarded moral damages to the victim's heirs commensurate to their emotional suffering. An award of P50,000.00 is proper and reasonable under current case law.[9]
	GR Nos. 115236-37 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. BRYAN FERDINAND DY Y LA MADRID YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, in the matter of the damages awarded by the trial court, this Court reduces the award of moral damages from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages are not awarded to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim or his family as the proximate result of the wrongful act. The award is not meant to enrich the victim at the expense of the accused.[45]

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO HAPA Y EBASCO