Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO MANGAHAS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR NO. 152715 2005-08-29	ROGELIO SOPLENTE v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
It has been ruled that the very act of giving false testimony impeaches that witness' own testimony and the court is compelled to exclude it from all consideration.[33] The findings of the trial court coupled with the admission of Rogelio himself as to who actually stabbed Notarte discredits the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The veracity of their testimonies had been effectively destroyed.
	GR No. 152715 2005-07-29	ROGELIO SOPLENTE v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
It has been ruled that the very act of giving false testimony impeaches that witness' own testimony and the court is compelled to exclude it from all consideration.[36] The findings of the trial court coupled with the admission of Rogelio himself as to who actually stabbed Notarte discredits the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The veracity of their testimonies had been effectively destroyed.
	GR No. 129960 2001-08-28	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CARIÑO QUISUMBING, J.
Absent treachery as a qualifying circumstance, appellant can only be convicted of homicide.[33] Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty on appellant is imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum with all the accessory penalties provided by law.[34]
	GR No. 128281 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. CARLITO SARAGINA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Since both treachery and evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime into murder, the accused-appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.[20] Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in favor of the accused-appellant, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum with all the accessories prescribed by law.[21]
	GR No. 128821 2000-04-12	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO ORIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lastly, it must be noted that accused-appellants fled to their home province in Palapag, Samar after the incident where they were arrested on September 4, 1992.[37] Suffice it to state in this regard that flight strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience.[38] Stated differently, the flight of accused-appellants is indicative of their guilt.[39] Apropos herein is that old biblical adage which says that "[t]he wicked fleeth even when no man pursueth, whereas the righteous are as brave as a lion."[40]
	GR No. 125332 2000-03-30	PEOPLE v. HERACLEO MONTE alias 'RAKLING' GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Considering the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and applying in is favor the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the sentence should be an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, a minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law.[34]
	GR Nos. 95891-92 2000-02-28	PEOPLE v. OSMUNDO FUERTES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Considering the presence of several aggravating circumstances with no mitigating circumstance the penalty in its maximum period which is death[111] would be imposable under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Fortunately for accused-appellant, since the crimes were committed during the suspension of the imposition of the death penalty and prior to its reimposition under Republic Act No. 7659, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.[112] This penalty is single and indivisible, thus, it shall be imposed regardless of any attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances.[113]
	GR No. 128812 2000-02-28	PEOPLE v. THADEOS ENGUITO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As to the award of actual damages, the same cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any competent document to support such claim.[32] Proof is required to be adequately supported by receipts.[33] The amount of P23,000.00 awarded by the trial court as funeral expenses should be reduced. Georgita Achumbre, widow of the deceased-victim, testified that she spent P7,000.00 for embalming and funeral cortege as evidenced by a receipt issued by the Green Hills Memorial Homes which is marked as Exhibit "H"[34] and another P9,300.00 as internment fee as shown in the receipt issued by the Divine Shepherd Memorial Gardens, Inc. which is marked as Exhibit "I".[35] She also spent "about P5,000.00 or more" for a one (1) week vigil, but no receipt was presented;[36] hence, the same cannot be included in the award for actual damages.[37] A party is entitled to compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.[38] The amount of "not less than P2,000.00" allegedly spent during the 40th day[39] cannot likewise be considered as the same was incurred after a considerable lapse of time from the burial of the victim.[40] Hence, only the total amount of P16,300.00 as actual damages should be awarded to the heirs of the deceased.