Lawyerly

GR No. 167333

2016-01-11

BERSAMIN, J.

Considering that the decisions of the lower courts contained no treatment of the actual damages, the Court is in no position to dwell on this. The lack of such treatment notwithstanding, the Court holds that temperate damages of P25,000.00 should be allowed to the heirs of the victim. Article 2224 of the Civil Code authorizes temperate damages to be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. There is no longer any doubt that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated with receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it is certainly unfair to deny to the surviving heirs of the victim the compensation for such expenses as actual damages.[19] This pronouncement proceeds from the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 would only be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would still be entitled to P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[20] In addition, in line with recent jurisprudence,[21] all the items of civil liability shall earn interest of 6% per annum, computed from the date of the finality of this judgment until the items are fully paid.

GR No. 201565

2014-10-13

PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in light of the positive identification made by Antipolo and Serapion. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[57] The accused-appellants' alibis that they were at different places at the time of the shooting are negative and self-serving and cannot be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis the affirmative testimony of credible witnesses. The accused-appellants, the victim, and the prosecution witnesses reside in the same municipality and are, therefore, familiar with one another. More so, that the two principal accused in this case are prominent political figures. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have been mistaken on the accused-appellants' identity including those who remained at large.

GR No. 167454

2014-09-24

EMERITU C. BARUT v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

The death indemnity and moral damages are fixed at P75,000.00 each in view of homicide being a gross offense. Considering that the decisions of the lower courts contained no treatment of the actual damages, the Court is now not in any position to dwell on this. Nonetheless, the Court holds that despite the lack of such treatment, temperate damages of P25,000.00 should be allowed. Article 2224 of the Civil Code declares that temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. There is no longer any doubt that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated with receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it is certainly unfair to deny to the surviving heirs of the victim the compensation for such expenses as actual damages.[18] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 would only be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would still be entitled to P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[19]

GR No. 191723

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in light of the positive identification made by one of their victims, Roger. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[58] The accused-appellants' alibis that they were at different places at the time of the shooting, and that family members and or their friends vouched for their whereabouts are negative and self-serving assertions and cannot not be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis the affirmative testimony of a credible witness. The accused-appellants and Roger, at one point, resided in the same barangay and, are, therefore, familiar with one another. Therefore, Roger could not have been mistaken on the accused-appellants' identity, including the five other accused who remained at large.

GR No. 208719

2014-06-09

PEOPLE v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

The concept of treachery in criminal law is well-established there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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.[20] Based on the foregoing, it may then be deduced that two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated: first, the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.[21]

GR No. 190340

2013-07-24

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

And as treachery qualifies the killing to murder,[33] the crime committed in this case is murder under Article 248 of the RPC.

GR No. 188329

2012-06-20

PEOPLE v. RUPERTO DONES

SERENO, J.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from any defense that the offended party might make.[23] The elements of treachery are as follows: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.[24] This is the essence of treachery -- a deliberate and sudden attack; affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. In treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.[25]

GR No. 173476

2012-02-22

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALAFRANCA Y BELLO

BERSAMIN, J.

The CA and the RTC committed another omission consisting in their non-recognition of the right of the heirs of Bolanon to temperate damages. It is already settled that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated by receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it would certainly be unfair to the surviving heirs of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual damages.[31]

GR No. 177743

2012-01-25

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO

BERSAMIN, J.

Another omission of the CA and the RTC was their non-recognition of the right of the heirs of the victim to temperate damages. The victim's wife testified about her family's incurring funeral expenses of P36,000.00, but only P18,000.00 was backed by receipts. It is already settled that when actual damages substantiated by receipts sum up to lower than P25,000.00, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 become justified, in lieu of actual damages in the lesser amount actually proved by receipts. It would obviously be unfair to the heirs of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual damages despite their honest attempt to prove their actual expenses by receipts (but succeeding only in showing expenses lower than P25,000.00 in amount).[35] Indeed, the heirs should not be left in a worse situation than the heirs of another victim who might be nonetheless allowed temperate damages of P25,000.00 despite not having presented any receipts at all. With the victim's wife having proved P18,000.00 worth of expenses, granting his heirs temperate damages of P25,000.00, not only P18,000.00, is just and proper. Not to do so would foster a travesty of basic fairness.

GR No. 177751

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER

DEL CASTILLO, J.

"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." [31] Two conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated. First, is the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. [32] "The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor." [33]

GR No. 182918

2011-06-06

PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE

BRION, J.

The CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery as the victim was shot at the back. [23] The attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; it afforded the unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself. [24]

GR No. 182458

2011-03-21

PEOPLE v. REX NIMUAN Y CACHO

BRION, J.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Alfredo's eyewitness account was corroborated by the postmortem report on the location and severity of the wounds sustained by the victim. Both the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or to defend himself.[14] The appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

GR No. 189281

2011-02-23

PEOPLE v. ROMEO ANCHES

BRION, J.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness account of Manuel Pomicpic, supported by the victim's antemortem statement, is more plausible than the appellant's alibi. Both the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery; although the attack on the victim was frontal, it was deliberate, sudden and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or to defend himself.[9] The appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since there was no aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime. To conform to recent jurisprudence, however, we increase the awarded exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[10]

GR No. 189294

2011-02-21

PEOPLE v. HERMINIANO MARZAN Y OLONAN

BRION, J.

The lower court's error in considering and imposing the penalty was in its failure to appreciate the full civil liability of the appellant. Since the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are additionally entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[19]

GR No. 188323

2011-02-21

PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ABAÑO Y CAÑARES

BRION, J.

While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant. Since the receipted expenses of the victim's family was less than P25,000.00, temperate damages should have been awarded in lieu of actual damages.[12] With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages, too, of P30,000.00 should have been awarded.[13]

GR No. 189328

2011-02-21

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD PELIS

BRION, J.

We find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant to include exemplary damages. Since the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[15]

GR No. 189580

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. ALVIN DEL ROSARIO

NACHURA, J.

The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[16] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the CA affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[17]

GR No. 186539

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA

VELASCO JR., J.

It must be remembered that when accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa went to the house of the victims demanding that supper be prepared for them, said victims did not have the slightest idea of what accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa intended to do with them. As a matter of fact, while Segundina and Rosemarie prepared supper for accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa, Jose and Jorge entertained them in the living room. They were just engaged in a conversation when accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa suddenly stood up and fired their guns at Jose and Jorge. As aptly observed by the CA, "The attack although frontal was very sudden and unexpected."[43] As we held in People v. Lacaden:[44]

GR No. 188124

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS

PEREZ, J.

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 especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[33]

	GR No. 167333 2016-01-11	PEDRO LADINES v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that the decisions of the lower courts contained no treatment of the actual damages, the Court is in no position to dwell on this. The lack of such treatment notwithstanding, the Court holds that temperate damages of P25,000.00 should be allowed to the heirs of the victim. Article 2224 of the Civil Code authorizes temperate damages to be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. There is no longer any doubt that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated with receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it is certainly unfair to deny to the surviving heirs of the victim the compensation for such expenses as actual damages.[19] This pronouncement proceeds from the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 would only be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would still be entitled to P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[20] In addition, in line with recent jurisprudence,[21] all the items of civil liability shall earn interest of 6% per annum, computed from the date of the finality of this judgment until the items are fully paid.
	GR No. 201565 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in light of the positive identification made by Antipolo and Serapion. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[57] The accused-appellants' alibis that they were at different places at the time of the shooting are negative and self-serving and cannot be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis the affirmative testimony of credible witnesses. The accused-appellants, the victim, and the prosecution witnesses reside in the same municipality and are, therefore, familiar with one another. More so, that the two principal accused in this case are prominent political figures. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have been mistaken on the accused-appellants' identity including those who remained at large.
	GR No. 167454 2014-09-24	EMERITU C. BARUT v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The death indemnity and moral damages are fixed at P75,000.00 each in view of homicide being a gross offense. Considering that the decisions of the lower courts contained no treatment of the actual damages, the Court is now not in any position to dwell on this. Nonetheless, the Court holds that despite the lack of such treatment, temperate damages of P25,000.00 should be allowed. Article 2224 of the Civil Code declares that temperate damages may be recovered when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. There is no longer any doubt that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated with receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it is certainly unfair to deny to the surviving heirs of the victim the compensation for such expenses as actual damages.[18] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 would only be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would still be entitled to P25,000.00 as temperate damages.[19]
	GR No. 191723 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The twin defenses of denial and alibi raised by the accused-appellants must fail in light of the positive identification made by one of their victims, Roger. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused as in this case. It is also axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[58] The accused-appellants' alibis that they were at different places at the time of the shooting, and that family members and or their friends vouched for their whereabouts are negative and self-serving assertions and cannot not be given more evidentiary value vis-à-vis the affirmative testimony of a credible witness. The accused-appellants and Roger, at one point, resided in the same barangay and, are, therefore, familiar with one another. Therefore, Roger could not have been mistaken on the accused-appellants' identity, including the five other accused who remained at large.
	GR No. 208719 2014-06-09	PEOPLE v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The concept of treachery in criminal law is well-established there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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.[20] Based on the foregoing, it may then be deduced that two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated: first, the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.[21]
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
And as treachery qualifies the killing to murder,[33] the crime committed in this case is murder under Article 248 of the RPC.
	GR No. 188329 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. RUPERTO DONES SERENO, J.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from any defense that the offended party might make.[23] The elements of treachery are as follows: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.[24] This is the essence of treachery -- a deliberate and sudden attack; affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. In treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.[25]
	GR No. 173476 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO SALAFRANCA Y BELLO BERSAMIN, J.
The CA and the RTC committed another omission consisting in their non-recognition of the right of the heirs of Bolanon to temperate damages. It is already settled that when actual damages for burial and related expenses are not substantiated by receipts, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 are warranted, for it would certainly be unfair to the surviving heirs of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual damages.[31]
	GR No. 177743 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO BERSAMIN, J.
Another omission of the CA and the RTC was their non-recognition of the right of the heirs of the victim to temperate damages. The victim's wife testified about her family's incurring funeral expenses of P36,000.00, but only P18,000.00 was backed by receipts. It is already settled that when actual damages substantiated by receipts sum up to lower than P25,000.00, temperate damages of at least P25,000.00 become justified, in lieu of actual damages in the lesser amount actually proved by receipts. It would obviously be unfair to the heirs of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual damages despite their honest attempt to prove their actual expenses by receipts (but succeeding only in showing expenses lower than P25,000.00 in amount).[35] Indeed, the heirs should not be left in a worse situation than the heirs of another victim who might be nonetheless allowed temperate damages of P25,000.00 despite not having presented any receipts at all. With the victim's wife having proved P18,000.00 worth of expenses, granting his heirs temperate damages of P25,000.00, not only P18,000.00, is just and proper. Not to do so would foster a travesty of basic fairness.
	GR No. 177751 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER DEL CASTILLO, J.
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." [31] Two conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated. First, is the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. [32] "The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor." [33]
	GR No. 182918 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE BRION, J.
The CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery as the victim was shot at the back. [23] The attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; it afforded the unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself. [24]
	GR No. 182458 2011-03-21	PEOPLE v. REX NIMUAN Y CACHO BRION, J.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Alfredo's eyewitness account was corroborated by the postmortem report on the location and severity of the wounds sustained by the victim. Both the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or to defend himself.[14] The appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
	GR No. 189281 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. ROMEO ANCHES BRION, J.
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness account of Manuel Pomicpic, supported by the victim's antemortem statement, is more plausible than the appellant's alibi. Both the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery; although the attack on the victim was frontal, it was deliberate, sudden and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or to defend himself.[9] The appellant was correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since there was no aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime. To conform to recent jurisprudence, however, we increase the awarded exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[10]
	GR No. 189294 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIANO MARZAN Y OLONAN BRION, J.
The lower court's error in considering and imposing the penalty was in its failure to appreciate the full civil liability of the appellant. Since the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are additionally entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[19]
	GR No. 188323 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE ABAÑO Y CAÑARES BRION, J.
While we affirm the CA's factual findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant. Since the receipted expenses of the victim's family was less than P25,000.00, temperate damages should have been awarded in lieu of actual damages.[12] With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages, too, of P30,000.00 should have been awarded.[13]
	GR No. 189328 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD PELIS BRION, J.
We find it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant to include exemplary damages. Since the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, his heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[15]
	GR No. 189580 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. ALVIN DEL ROSARIO NACHURA, J.
The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[16] Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the CA affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.[17]
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
It must be remembered that when accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa went to the house of the victims demanding that supper be prepared for them, said victims did not have the slightest idea of what accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa intended to do with them. As a matter of fact, while Segundina and Rosemarie prepared supper for accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa, Jose and Jorge entertained them in the living room. They were just engaged in a conversation when accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa suddenly stood up and fired their guns at Jose and Jorge. As aptly observed by the CA, "The attack although frontal was very sudden and unexpected."[43] As we held in People v. Lacaden:[44]
	GR No. 188124 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JONEL FALABRICA SERENAS PEREZ, J.
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 especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[33]

PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS