Lawyerly

GR No. 188710

2014-06-02

SERENO, C.J.

For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration of an attack with treachery cannot be presumed.[32] A case in point is People v. Rapanut,[33] in which this Court ruled out treachery as the eyewitness saw the accused only after the initial sound of gunshots, as obtained in this case. Circumstances that qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjecture, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. These circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.[34]

GR No. 188320

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. RIO TIBON Y DEISO

VELASCO JR., J.

The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence.[21] It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.[22] We agree with the Solicitor General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crimes.

GR No. 182156

2009-11-25

REY A. VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

We also uphold the position of the OSG that the heirs of Manuel are entitled to moral damages. Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without need of any allegation or proof other than the death of the victim. Moral damages are awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional sufferings of the victim's heirs because, as borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[32] Consistent with this rule, we award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[33]

GR No. 185285

2009-10-05

PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO

VELASCO JR., J.

The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[25] It is improper to assume the contrary.[26] This presumption, however, may be overcome by evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person from criminal liability.

GR No. 177825

2008-10-24

PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Conformably with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Rene Rosas are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, which is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[28] Likewise, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim. Moral damages are awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[29] Accused-appellant is also liable to pay exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00 in view of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.[30]

GR No. 178196

2008-08-06

PEOPLE v. RUDY BUDUHAN Y BULLAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the award of damages, we hold that the heirs of Larry Erese and Romualde Almeron are each entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto. This award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[107]

GR No. 177223

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The allegation in the Information of treachery as a qualifying circumstance was similarly assailed in People v. Opuran,[32] wherein the charge was as follows: Criminal Case No. 4693 That on or about November 19, 1998, at nighttime, at Km. 1, South Road, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with deliberate intent to kill and treachery, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., with the use of a bladed weapon (5" long from tip to handle with scabbard), thereby inflicting upon the victim fatal stab wounds on the back of his body, which wounds resulted to his instantaneous death.

GR NO. 168818

2007-03-09

NILO SABANG v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

As regards the matter of damages, we affirm the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for the heirs of Butad in line with recent jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[43] We also affirm the award of P180,000.00 representing loss of earning capacity at a reasonable life expectancy of three (3) years considering that Butad was already 67 years old at the time of the incident.[44] Likewise affirmed are the award of P50,000.00 as burial expenses duly proven, attorney's fees of P40,000.00, and appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing.

GR NO. 163351

2005-06-21

ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to award civil indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of the victims. The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[12] Hence, based on recent jurisprudence[13], the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 each for the heirs of both So and Castro is in order.

GR No. 155256

2004-07-30

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

The trial court was, therefore, correct in finding that Eduardo killed Nelson. However, we cannot affirm the trial court's finding that treachery attended the killing. 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 to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[21] Note that Henry did not witness the commencement of the attack against the victim. We have held that for treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[22] Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23]

	GR No. 188710 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. MATIMANAY WATAMAMA SERENO, C.J.
For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration of an attack with treachery cannot be presumed.[32] A case in point is People v. Rapanut,[33] in which this Court ruled out treachery as the eyewitness saw the accused only after the initial sound of gunshots, as obtained in this case. Circumstances that qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjecture, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. These circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.[34]
	GR No. 188320 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. RIO TIBON Y DEISO VELASCO JR., J.
The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence.[21] It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.[22] We agree with the Solicitor General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crimes.
	GR No. 182156 2009-11-25	REY A. VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We also uphold the position of the OSG that the heirs of Manuel are entitled to moral damages. Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without need of any allegation or proof other than the death of the victim. Moral damages are awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional sufferings of the victim's heirs because, as borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[32] Consistent with this rule, we award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[33]
	GR No. 185285 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. PAUL ALIPIO VELASCO JR., J.
The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[25] It is improper to assume the contrary.[26] This presumption, however, may be overcome by evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person from criminal liability.
	GR No. 177825 2008-10-24	PEOPLE v. RENE ROSAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Conformably with existing jurisprudence, the heirs of Rene Rosas are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, which is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[28] Likewise, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim. Moral damages are awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[29] Accused-appellant is also liable to pay exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000.00 in view of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.[30]
	GR No. 178196 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. RUDY BUDUHAN Y BULLAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, we hold that the heirs of Larry Erese and Romualde Almeron are each entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto. This award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[107]
	GR No. 177223 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The allegation in the Information of treachery as a qualifying circumstance was similarly assailed in People v. Opuran,[32] wherein the charge was as follows: Criminal Case No. 4693 That on or about November 19, 1998, at nighttime, at Km. 1, South Road, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with deliberate intent to kill and treachery, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., with the use of a bladed weapon (5" long from tip to handle with scabbard), thereby inflicting upon the victim fatal stab wounds on the back of his body, which wounds resulted to his instantaneous death.
	GR NO. 168818 2007-03-09	NILO SABANG v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
As regards the matter of damages, we affirm the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for the heirs of Butad in line with recent jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[43] We also affirm the award of P180,000.00 representing loss of earning capacity at a reasonable life expectancy of three (3) years considering that Butad was already 67 years old at the time of the incident.[44] Likewise affirmed are the award of P50,000.00 as burial expenses duly proven, attorney's fees of P40,000.00, and appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing.
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to award civil indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of the victims. The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[12] Hence, based on recent jurisprudence[13], the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 each for the heirs of both So and Castro is in order.
	GR No. 155256 2004-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
The trial court was, therefore, correct in finding that Eduardo killed Nelson. However, we cannot affirm the trial court's finding that treachery attended the killing. 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 to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[21] Note that Henry did not witness the commencement of the attack against the victim. We have held that for treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed.[22] Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the killing itself. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[23]

PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN