Lawyerly

GR No. 175315

2010-08-09

DEL CASTILLO, J.

However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred medical and funeral expenses, P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages should be awarded.[37] "This award is adjudicated so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated, and not for the purpose of indemnification."[38]

GR No. 177564

2008-10-31

ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court pored over the records of the case and found that Bryan's candid and straightforward narration of the brutal act perpetrated by Arturo on the night of the incident indubitably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a 19-year old young barrio boy would concoct a tale surrounding the atrocious killing of his grandmother, and would impute so grave a crime to someone he respected, had it not actually taken place. The defense cannot even come up with a decent imputation that Bryan was impelled by ill motive when he pointed at Arturo as the author of the carnage. This is so because there is no plausible reason why Bryan should testify against Arturo, if the latter has nothing to do with what had happened. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[24] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Bryan's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[25] So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.[26] In the instant case, Bryan gave a clear and convincing narration of the crime, identifying Arturo as responsible thereof. His lone testimony as an eyewitness, therefore, is sufficient to support a conviction.

GR No. 148710

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. JAIME BAÑO

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

Now, on Jaime's civil liability. The victim's heirs should be awarded civil indemnity of P50,000, which is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused for the death. Likewise, moral damages in the sum of P50,000 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering by the victim's relatives conformably with People v. Carillo,[29] People v. Panela,[30] and People v. Panado.[31]

GR Nos. 116224-27

2003-03-28

PEOPLE v. DONATO CARAIG

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

Besides, a list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions.[45] Neither can the mere testimonies of the victims' widows Ruth Agustin, Rhodora Raagas, and Merle Castro in the consolidated cases against Caraig justify the awards for funeral or burial expenses. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court. [46] Nonetheless, in line with People v. Carillo,[47] reiterated in People v. Bonifacio,[48] we shall award nominal damages in the amount of P10,000 for each group of heirs of the victims, since they clearly incurred funeral expenses.

GR No. 142447

2001-12-21

PEOPLE v. CARMELITO VICENTE Y FIGO

BELLOSILLO, J.

From his arguments alone, accused-appellant Rey Ballera has not shown why the testimonies of Venus and John Lyndon should be discarded. That Venus is the wife of the deceased and John Lyndon is his son do not detract from their credibility. In the absence of any improper motive to testify on the part of this witnesses, their testimonies are not affected by their relationship to the victim. Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of ulterior motive nor does it ipso facto tarnish the credibility of a witness. On the contrary, a relative's natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating persons other than the culprits for then the blameworthy would gain immunity.[16] Besides, while it may be true that Venus thirsted for revenge it does not necessarily follow that her wrath would be directed indiscriminately so as to include even the innocent.

GR No. 132373

2001-10-23

PEOPLE v. VS.TIRSO ARCAY

QUISUMBING, J.

In Criminal Case No. 8080, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Leonito Doliente P25,000 as funeral expenses and P50,000 as death indemnity. The award of P25,000 as actual damages, however, should be deleted, for lack of receipts as supporting evidence. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with competent proof.[30] However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses, P10,000 by way of nominal damages ought to be awarded.[31] In addition, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 and P10,000 as exemplary damages should also be granted to the heirs of the victim,[32] together with attorney's fees of P10,000 and the costs.

GR No. 123058

2001-09-26

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD

QUISUMBING, J.

Finally, appellant insists that his non-flight from his locality supports his innocence. While we have held that flight may be evidence of guilt,[12] his argument is to say that non-flight is proof of innocence, is a non sequitur.[13]

GR Nos. 127759-60

2001-09-24

PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

QUISUMBING, J.

In Criminal Case No. 2214-146, actual damages payable to the heirs of the late SPO4 Santiago Miguel was set by the trial court at P55,000.00. Again, no receipts substantiate this award for actual damages. As in Criminal Case No.2213-45, P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages is sufficient.[59] We agree with the trial court that since the late SPO4 Miguel's provocation led accused to commit these crimes, his heirs are not entitled to moral damages. They are, however, entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

GR No. 131817

2001-08-08

PEOPLE v. DANTE DOMINGO Y LIMPOT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

On the other hand, the heirs of the victim are entitled to receive moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This award is mandatory and does not require proof other than the death of the victim.[12]

GR No. 144113

2001-06-28

EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive for Marino Atienza to testify falsely, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credence.[30] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Marino Atienza's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[31]

GR No. 126145

2001-04-30

PEOPLE v. HERMES B. SARMIENTO

PUNO, J.

We hold, however, that the crime was committed with treachery and abuse of superior strength. The victim was unaware of the attack as he was then repairing a cart. Even his relatives who were just a few meters from him did not expect the attack. It was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense.[26] As the victim was already wounded, appellant Hermes Sarmiento still told appellant Rudy Sarmiento to help him stab the victim. They then took turns in delivering more stabbing blows on the victim despite the fact that he was already slumped on the ground. It is clear that appellants employed means in killing the victim which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might take.[27] Clearly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. While abuse of superior strength is present, it is absorbed by treachery and cannot be appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.[28]

GR No. 124572

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. CIRILO OPOSCULO

PARDO, J.

We have examined the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Henry Cuevas and found nothing that would cast doubt on the veracity of his account of how accused-appellant Cirilo drew a "balisong" from his waist and stab Glorito to death in front of accused Ernesto's store in the evening of October 13, 1990. The fact that Henry is the nephew of the victim Glorito does not destroy his credibility. Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons, as one's natural interest would be to secure conviction of the real culprit.[11] And in the absence of evidence that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[12]

GR No. 128819

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA

PARDO, J.

However, the trial court erred in further appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, so that it can not be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance.[15]

GR No. 128819

2000-11-20

PEOPLE v. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA

PARDO, J.

As to as the penalty imposed, we note that the trial court gave a singular monetary award of P50,000.00, in favor of the heirs of Gomersindo. That can be considered as civil indemnity which is awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[17] However, another P50,000.00 may be awarded by way of moral damages which is mandatory and does not require proof other than the death of the victim.[18]

GR No. 130613

2000-10-05

PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO AQUINO

BELLOSILLO, J.

The trial court erred in awarding P38,700.00 as actual damages to the heirs of Ricardo Junio, the same not having been adequately established. No receipts were presented to support the claim. However, we deem it proper to award P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages pursuant to People v. Candare[8] -

	GR No. 175315 2010-08-09	PEOPLE v. ELIZER BEDUYA DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred medical and funeral expenses, P25,000.00 by way of temperate damages should be awarded.[37] "This award is adjudicated so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated, and not for the purpose of indemnification."[38]
	GR No. 177564 2008-10-31	ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court pored over the records of the case and found that Bryan's candid and straightforward narration of the brutal act perpetrated by Arturo on the night of the incident indubitably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a 19-year old young barrio boy would concoct a tale surrounding the atrocious killing of his grandmother, and would impute so grave a crime to someone he respected, had it not actually taken place. The defense cannot even come up with a decent imputation that Bryan was impelled by ill motive when he pointed at Arturo as the author of the carnage. This is so because there is no plausible reason why Bryan should testify against Arturo, if the latter has nothing to do with what had happened. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[24] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Bryan's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[25] So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.[26] In the instant case, Bryan gave a clear and convincing narration of the crime, identifying Arturo as responsible thereof. His lone testimony as an eyewitness, therefore, is sufficient to support a conviction.
	GR No. 148710 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. JAIME BAÑO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Now, on Jaime's civil liability. The victim's heirs should be awarded civil indemnity of P50,000, which is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused for the death. Likewise, moral damages in the sum of P50,000 should be awarded even in the absence of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering by the victim's relatives conformably with People v. Carillo,[29] People v. Panela,[30] and People v. Panado.[31]
	GR Nos. 116224-27 2003-03-28	PEOPLE v. DONATO CARAIG DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Besides, a list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions.[45] Neither can the mere testimonies of the victims' widows Ruth Agustin, Rhodora Raagas, and Merle Castro in the consolidated cases against Caraig justify the awards for funeral or burial expenses. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court. [46] Nonetheless, in line with People v. Carillo,[47] reiterated in People v. Bonifacio,[48] we shall award nominal damages in the amount of P10,000 for each group of heirs of the victims, since they clearly incurred funeral expenses.
	GR No. 142447 2001-12-21	PEOPLE v. CARMELITO VICENTE Y FIGO BELLOSILLO, J.
From his arguments alone, accused-appellant Rey Ballera has not shown why the testimonies of Venus and John Lyndon should be discarded. That Venus is the wife of the deceased and John Lyndon is his son do not detract from their credibility. In the absence of any improper motive to testify on the part of this witnesses, their testimonies are not affected by their relationship to the victim. Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of ulterior motive nor does it ipso facto tarnish the credibility of a witness. On the contrary, a relative's natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating persons other than the culprits for then the blameworthy would gain immunity.[16] Besides, while it may be true that Venus thirsted for revenge it does not necessarily follow that her wrath would be directed indiscriminately so as to include even the innocent.
	GR No. 132373 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. VS.TIRSO ARCAY QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 8080, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Leonito Doliente P25,000 as funeral expenses and P50,000 as death indemnity. The award of P25,000 as actual damages, however, should be deleted, for lack of receipts as supporting evidence. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with competent proof.[30] However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses, P10,000 by way of nominal damages ought to be awarded.[31] In addition, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 and P10,000 as exemplary damages should also be granted to the heirs of the victim,[32] together with attorney's fees of P10,000 and the costs.
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, appellant insists that his non-flight from his locality supports his innocence. While we have held that flight may be evidence of guilt,[12] his argument is to say that non-flight is proof of innocence, is a non sequitur.[13]
	GR Nos. 127759-60 2001-09-24	PEOPLE v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 2214-146, actual damages payable to the heirs of the late SPO4 Santiago Miguel was set by the trial court at P55,000.00. Again, no receipts substantiate this award for actual damages. As in Criminal Case No.2213-45, P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages is sufficient.[59] We agree with the trial court that since the late SPO4 Miguel's provocation led accused to commit these crimes, his heirs are not entitled to moral damages. They are, however, entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
	GR No. 131817 2001-08-08	PEOPLE v. DANTE DOMINGO Y LIMPOT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the other hand, the heirs of the victim are entitled to receive moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This award is mandatory and does not require proof other than the death of the victim.[12]
	GR No. 144113 2001-06-28	EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Absent any evidence of any improper motive for Marino Atienza to testify falsely, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credence.[30] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Marino Atienza's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[31]
	GR No. 126145 2001-04-30	PEOPLE v. HERMES B. SARMIENTO PUNO, J.
We hold, however, that the crime was committed with treachery and abuse of superior strength. The victim was unaware of the attack as he was then repairing a cart. Even his relatives who were just a few meters from him did not expect the attack. It was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense.[26] As the victim was already wounded, appellant Hermes Sarmiento still told appellant Rudy Sarmiento to help him stab the victim. They then took turns in delivering more stabbing blows on the victim despite the fact that he was already slumped on the ground. It is clear that appellants employed means in killing the victim which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might take.[27] Clearly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. While abuse of superior strength is present, it is absorbed by treachery and cannot be appreciated as an independent aggravating circumstance.[28]
	GR No. 124572 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. CIRILO OPOSCULO PARDO, J.
We have examined the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Henry Cuevas and found nothing that would cast doubt on the veracity of his account of how accused-appellant Cirilo drew a "balisong" from his waist and stab Glorito to death in front of accused Ernesto's store in the evening of October 13, 1990. The fact that Henry is the nephew of the victim Glorito does not destroy his credibility. Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons, as one's natural interest would be to secure conviction of the real culprit.[11] And in the absence of evidence that the prosecution's main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not so moved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[12]
	GR No. 128819 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA PARDO, J.
However, the trial court erred in further appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, so that it can not be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance.[15]
	GR No. 128819 2000-11-20	PEOPLE v. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA PARDO, J.
As to as the penalty imposed, we note that the trial court gave a singular monetary award of P50,000.00, in favor of the heirs of Gomersindo. That can be considered as civil indemnity which is awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[17] However, another P50,000.00 may be awarded by way of moral damages which is mandatory and does not require proof other than the death of the victim.[18]
	GR No. 130613 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO AQUINO BELLOSILLO, J.
The trial court erred in awarding P38,700.00 as actual damages to the heirs of Ricardo Junio, the same not having been adequately established. No receipts were presented to support the claim. However, we deem it proper to award P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages pursuant to People v. Candare[8] -

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CANDARE