Lawyerly

GR No. 187731

2013-09-18

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In this case, the courts below based their finding of evident premeditation on the entries in the Dispatch Logbook, the alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs, as well as the telephone call made by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident. To our mind, however, these circumstances do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill. At most, these circumstances are indicative only of conspiracy among the accused. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[47] "[I]t must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt."[48] Notably, even the OSG admitted that the lapse of time from the moment the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

GR No. 199713

2013-02-20

PEOPLE v. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, Jaymart's alibi was uncorroborated. Jaymart's mother, father, or any of the other vendors at Divisoria could have vouched for his presence in Divisoria at the time Emmanuel was shot, but other than Jaymart himself, no one else took the witness stand for the defense. Jaymart's bare assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Edwin. Between Jaymart's self-serving testimony and Edwin's positive identification of Jaymart as the gunman, the latter deserves greater credence.[22]

GR No. 147201

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN SAYABOC Y SEGUBA

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

Without the extrajudicial confession narrating when Sayaboc was hired to kill Galam, the testimony that the former inquired about the latter while waiting in the Rooftop from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. of that fateful day does not prove the time when Sayaboc decided to kill Galam. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before that plan was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[35]

GR No. 139970

2002-06-06

PEOPLE v. JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO

QUISUMBING, J.

The accused seemed unconfident (sic) when he related before the Court his version of the stabbing incident. He seemed anxious on the witness stand and he appeared to be hiding something as he could not deliver his statements smoothly and naturally. Certainly, these circumstances in his personal behavior as keenly observed on the witness stand, ruined his credibility.[21] With respect to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of a clear showing that some fact or circumstance of weight or substance had been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied,[22] the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses and their testimonies would not be disturbed on appeal. For the determination of credibility is the domain of the trial court, and the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best performed by it.[23]

GR No. 134362

2002-02-27

PEOPLE v. EMELITO SITCHON Y TAYAG

KAPUNAN, J.

The trial court incorrectly appreciated cruelty against the accused. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.[21] The nature of cruelty lies in the fact that the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act which he intended to commit.[22] The sheer number of wounds, however, is not a test for determining whether cruelty attended the commission of a crime.[23]

GR No. 115984

2000-02-29

PEOPLE v. RUFINO GAMER Y MALIT

QUISUMBING, J.

Thus appellant's defense of alibi and denial gains considerable strength in the face of the unreliable identification of the alleged perpetrator of the crime.[47] Evidence against him is simply quite weak to hold him even for trial. The public prosecutor should have moved to dismiss the charges, as he did in favor of the co-accused, Teodoro Siron, Jr. The literal signification of the word "alibi"is"elsewhere"[48] and for alibi to prosper, the requisites of time and place[49] must be established by clear and convincing evidence.[50] Here, appellant and his employer, Renato Simbillo, testified that as early as 5:00 p.m.; they were preparing to leave for Manila, and at around 9:00 p.m., they were already somewhere in the vicinity of the Manila area unloading the sand and gravel.[51] That Mr. Simbillo is a friend and neighbor of the victim[52] persuades us that he has no possible motive to fabricate his testimony in favor of appellant.

GR No. 125936

2000-02-23

PEOPLE v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ

PARDO, J.

The Court deplores the fact that an innocent person lost his life in a most tragic manner. In criminal cases, it is the prosecution's duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or of any other crime proved necessarily included therein.[25] In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support conviction for robbery with homicide, the crime charged. Neither robbery nor homicide was proved. However, the prosecution's evidence proved the commission of qualified theft, sufficiently included in the allegations of the information.[26] The property stolen is a motor vehicle, hence, accused-appellant may be convicted of qualified theft, not robbery with homicide.[27]

GR No. 113940

2000-02-15

PEOPLE v. CIELITO BULURAN Y RAMIREZ

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved clearly and convincingly.[26] Considering that the attack was made about two minutes after the initial altercation,[27] it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time between such determination to commit the crime and its execution so as to allow the assailants to reflect upon the consequences of their actions.[28]

GR No. 124129

2000-01-28

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

QUISUMBING, J.

Where the issue is one involving the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court. It had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination, and it can be expected to determine with reasonable discretion, which testimony is acceptable and which witness is unworthy of belief. As a rule, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court did overlook, ignore, misapprehend, or misinterpret some facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the disposition of the case.[16]

GR No. 100718-19

2000-01-20

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE JUAN

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

In the present case, although the shooting of Carlos Torres was sudden and unexpected, it was clearly part and parcel of the chase of TABANG. The aggression was continuous and cannot be broken up to constitute a separate, distinct and independent attack. It was the aftermath of the confrontation between TABANG and FREDDIE which begun earlier that evening at nine o'clock when FREDDIE accused TABANG of kicking his son and confronted him about this. This was followed by FREDDIE's attempt to box TABANG who was able to avoid getting hit. The boxing incident was followed by the stoning incident where FREDDIE and EFREN stoned the house of TABANG. There was no break in the continuity of the aggression since only five minutes elapsed from the time the stoning had ceased and from the time TABANG went outside to urinate.[27] The settled rule is that in order to appreciate treachery in cases of continuous aggression, the same must be shown present at the inception of the attack.[28] Considering that the boxing and stoning incidents preceded the aggression against TABANG, the attack on TABANG cannot be characterized as treacherous inasmuch as the chase was preceded by an altercation.[29] He was sufficiently forewarned of the reprisal that the accused-appellants might make when he left the house to answer the call of nature and was therefore necessarily aware or at least had an inkling that he was in some sort of danger. Although the victim, Carlos Torres, was not aware of these prior circumstances, the fact that he was suddenly shot does not make the shooting treacherous considering that the intended victim of the attack was TABANG and his appearance was accidental. We are inclined to rule out the existence of treachery since the manner of attacking the victim cannot be characterized as deliberately and consciously adopted inasmuch as the accused-appellants had no intention at all of killing Carlos Torres.

	GR No. 187731 2013-09-18	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ALFREDO ALAWIG DEL CASTILLO, J.
In this case, the courts below based their finding of evident premeditation on the entries in the Dispatch Logbook, the alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs, as well as the telephone call made by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident. To our mind, however, these circumstances do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill. At most, these circumstances are indicative only of conspiracy among the accused. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[47] "[I]t must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt."[48] Notably, even the OSG admitted that the lapse of time from the moment the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
	GR No. 199713 2013-02-20	PEOPLE v. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, Jaymart's alibi was uncorroborated. Jaymart's mother, father, or any of the other vendors at Divisoria could have vouched for his presence in Divisoria at the time Emmanuel was shot, but other than Jaymart himself, no one else took the witness stand for the defense. Jaymart's bare assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Edwin. Between Jaymart's self-serving testimony and Edwin's positive identification of Jaymart as the gunman, the latter deserves greater credence.[22]
	GR No. 147201 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN SAYABOC Y SEGUBA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Without the extrajudicial confession narrating when Sayaboc was hired to kill Galam, the testimony that the former inquired about the latter while waiting in the Rooftop from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. of that fateful day does not prove the time when Sayaboc decided to kill Galam. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before that plan was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[35]
	GR No. 139970 2002-06-06	PEOPLE v. JIMMY DELA CRUZ Y QUIMPO QUISUMBING, J.
The accused seemed unconfident (sic) when he related before the Court his version of the stabbing incident. He seemed anxious on the witness stand and he appeared to be hiding something as he could not deliver his statements smoothly and naturally. Certainly, these circumstances in his personal behavior as keenly observed on the witness stand, ruined his credibility.[21] With respect to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of a clear showing that some fact or circumstance of weight or substance had been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied,[22] the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses and their testimonies would not be disturbed on appeal. For the determination of credibility is the domain of the trial court, and the matter of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses is best performed by it.[23]
	GR No. 134362 2002-02-27	PEOPLE v. EMELITO SITCHON Y TAYAG KAPUNAN, J.
The trial court incorrectly appreciated cruelty against the accused. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.[21] The nature of cruelty lies in the fact that the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act which he intended to commit.[22] The sheer number of wounds, however, is not a test for determining whether cruelty attended the commission of a crime.[23]
	GR No. 115984 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. RUFINO GAMER Y MALIT QUISUMBING, J.
Thus appellant's defense of alibi and denial gains considerable strength in the face of the unreliable identification of the alleged perpetrator of the crime.[47] Evidence against him is simply quite weak to hold him even for trial. The public prosecutor should have moved to dismiss the charges, as he did in favor of the co-accused, Teodoro Siron, Jr. The literal signification of the word "alibi"is"elsewhere"[48] and for alibi to prosper, the requisites of time and place[49] must be established by clear and convincing evidence.[50] Here, appellant and his employer, Renato Simbillo, testified that as early as 5:00 p.m.; they were preparing to leave for Manila, and at around 9:00 p.m., they were already somewhere in the vicinity of the Manila area unloading the sand and gravel.[51] That Mr. Simbillo is a friend and neighbor of the victim[52] persuades us that he has no possible motive to fabricate his testimony in favor of appellant.
	GR No. 125936 2000-02-23	PEOPLE v. RICARDO DELA CRUZ PARDO, J.
The Court deplores the fact that an innocent person lost his life in a most tragic manner. In criminal cases, it is the prosecution's duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or of any other crime proved necessarily included therein.[25] In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support conviction for robbery with homicide, the crime charged. Neither robbery nor homicide was proved. However, the prosecution's evidence proved the commission of qualified theft, sufficiently included in the allegations of the information.[26] The property stolen is a motor vehicle, hence, accused-appellant may be convicted of qualified theft, not robbery with homicide.[27]
	GR No. 113940 2000-02-15	PEOPLE v. CIELITO BULURAN Y RAMIREZ QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved clearly and convincingly.[26] Considering that the attack was made about two minutes after the initial altercation,[27] it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time between such determination to commit the crime and its execution so as to allow the assailants to reflect upon the consequences of their actions.[28]
	GR No. 124129 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO QUISUMBING, J.
Where the issue is one involving the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court. It had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination, and it can be expected to determine with reasonable discretion, which testimony is acceptable and which witness is unworthy of belief. As a rule, findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court did overlook, ignore, misapprehend, or misinterpret some facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the disposition of the case.[16]
	GR No. 100718-19 2000-01-20	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE JUAN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
In the present case, although the shooting of Carlos Torres was sudden and unexpected, it was clearly part and parcel of the chase of TABANG. The aggression was continuous and cannot be broken up to constitute a separate, distinct and independent attack. It was the aftermath of the confrontation between TABANG and FREDDIE which begun earlier that evening at nine o'clock when FREDDIE accused TABANG of kicking his son and confronted him about this. This was followed by FREDDIE's attempt to box TABANG who was able to avoid getting hit. The boxing incident was followed by the stoning incident where FREDDIE and EFREN stoned the house of TABANG. There was no break in the continuity of the aggression since only five minutes elapsed from the time the stoning had ceased and from the time TABANG went outside to urinate.[27] The settled rule is that in order to appreciate treachery in cases of continuous aggression, the same must be shown present at the inception of the attack.[28] Considering that the boxing and stoning incidents preceded the aggression against TABANG, the attack on TABANG cannot be characterized as treacherous inasmuch as the chase was preceded by an altercation.[29] He was sufficiently forewarned of the reprisal that the accused-appellants might make when he left the house to answer the call of nature and was therefore necessarily aware or at least had an inkling that he was in some sort of danger. Although the victim, Carlos Torres, was not aware of these prior circumstances, the fact that he was suddenly shot does not make the shooting treacherous considering that the intended victim of the attack was TABANG and his appearance was accidental. We are inclined to rule out the existence of treachery since the manner of attacking the victim cannot be characterized as deliberately and consciously adopted inasmuch as the accused-appellants had no intention at all of killing Carlos Torres.

PEOPLE v. GILBERT BASAO Y MACA