Lawyerly

GR No. 179535

2014-06-09

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While the CA correctly imposed the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, it failed, however, to award moral damages. These awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[43] Thus, for moral damages, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim is only proper.

GR No. 198022

2014-04-07

PEOPLE v. SONNY GATARIN Y CABALLERO

PERALTA, J.

First, in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.[21] In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it must be established that a robbery has actually taken place and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, a homicide be committed.[22]

GR No. 198789

2013-06-03

PEOPLE v. REGGIE BERNARDO

REYES, J.

A complex crime is only one crime. Although two or more crimes are actually committed, there is only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender when it comes to complex crimes. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.[29]

GR No. 201449

2013-04-03

PEOPLE v. WELVIN DIU Y KOTSESA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Based on Perlie's testimony, as she and Nely were walking along Colorado Street, accused-appellants and De la Cruz were all facing the wall, appearing to be urinating. When Perlie and Nely had passed them by, accused-appellants and De la Cruz accosted them at the same time, with accused-appellant Diu embracing Perlie and taking her bag, and accused-appellant Dayaon and De la Cruz holding on to Nely and stabbing her as she fought back. The actuations of accused-appellants and De la Cruz were clearly coordinated and complementary to one another. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility.[52] As the RTC declared, "[t]he actions of the three accused, from the deprivation of the eyewitness [Perlie] of her personal belongings by accused Diu to the stabbing of the victim Nely by accused Dayaon and De la Cruz, Jr., are clear and indubitable proofs of a concerted effort to deprive [Perlie] and Nely of their personal belongings, and that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery, stabbed and killed victim Nely Salvador."[53] The absence of proof that accused-appellants attempted to stop Nely's killing, plus the finding of conspiracy, make accused-appellants liable as principals for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

GR No. 181354

2013-02-27

SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

The foregoing circumstances indeed tainted Flores' credibility and reliability, his story being contrary to ordinary human experience. "Settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself. Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in conformity with common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind."[34]

GR No. 179497

2012-01-25

PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Court modifies the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[40] said award is increased to P75,000.00. Anent the award of moral damages, the CA correctly imposed the amount of P50,000.00.[41] These "awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide."[42]

GR No. 190861

2011-12-07

PEOPLE v. LINO L. DUAVIS

PERALTA, J.

Further, settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself.[21] Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in conformity with common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind.[22] Based on the findings of the trial court and the CA, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are more credible in itself than the self-serving defense of appellant.

GR No. 185390

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING

VELASCO JR., J.

Also, Paling did not present any evidence which would show that Richard was driven by any improper motive in testifying against him and the other accused. Significantly, the absence of such improper motive on the part of the witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[40] Indeed, there is no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court.

GR No. 185390

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING

VELASCO JR., J.

We disagree. The killing of Walter was neither attended by treachery nor evident premeditation. In this regard, it is worth noting that "qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself."[49]

GR No. 185390

2011-03-16

PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING

VELASCO JR., J.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the crime, the medium penalty is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.[57]

	GR No. 179535 2014-06-09	JOSE ESPINELI v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
While the CA correctly imposed the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, it failed, however, to award moral damages. These awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[43] Thus, for moral damages, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim is only proper.
	GR No. 198022 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. SONNY GATARIN Y CABALLERO PERALTA, J.
First, in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.[21] In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it must be established that a robbery has actually taken place and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, a homicide be committed.[22]
	GR No. 198789 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. REGGIE BERNARDO REYES, J.
A complex crime is only one crime. Although two or more crimes are actually committed, there is only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender when it comes to complex crimes. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.[29]
	GR No. 201449 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. WELVIN DIU Y KOTSESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Based on Perlie's testimony, as she and Nely were walking along Colorado Street, accused-appellants and De la Cruz were all facing the wall, appearing to be urinating. When Perlie and Nely had passed them by, accused-appellants and De la Cruz accosted them at the same time, with accused-appellant Diu embracing Perlie and taking her bag, and accused-appellant Dayaon and De la Cruz holding on to Nely and stabbing her as she fought back. The actuations of accused-appellants and De la Cruz were clearly coordinated and complementary to one another. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility.[52] As the RTC declared, "[t]he actions of the three accused, from the deprivation of the eyewitness [Perlie] of her personal belongings by accused Diu to the stabbing of the victim Nely by accused Dayaon and De la Cruz, Jr., are clear and indubitable proofs of a concerted effort to deprive [Perlie] and Nely of their personal belongings, and that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery, stabbed and killed victim Nely Salvador."[53] The absence of proof that accused-appellants attempted to stop Nely's killing, plus the finding of conspiracy, make accused-appellants liable as principals for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The foregoing circumstances indeed tainted Flores' credibility and reliability, his story being contrary to ordinary human experience. "Settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself. Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in conformity with common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind."[34]
	GR No. 179497 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court modifies the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[40] said award is increased to P75,000.00. Anent the award of moral damages, the CA correctly imposed the amount of P50,000.00.[41] These "awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide."[42]
	GR No. 190861 2011-12-07	PEOPLE v. LINO L. DUAVIS PERALTA, J.
Further, settled is the rule that testimonial evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must foremost be credible in itself.[21] Hence, the test to determine the value or credibility of the testimony of a witness is whether the same is in conformity with common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind.[22] Based on the findings of the trial court and the CA, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are more credible in itself than the self-serving defense of appellant.
	GR No. 185390 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING VELASCO JR., J.
Also, Paling did not present any evidence which would show that Richard was driven by any improper motive in testifying against him and the other accused. Significantly, the absence of such improper motive on the part of the witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[40] Indeed, there is no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 185390 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING VELASCO JR., J.
We disagree. The killing of Walter was neither attended by treachery nor evident premeditation. In this regard, it is worth noting that "qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself."[49]
	GR No. 185390 2011-03-16	PEOPLE v. ALEX PALING VELASCO JR., J.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant in the commission of the crime, the medium penalty is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.[57]

PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA