Lawyerly

GR No. 189405

2014-11-19

PERALTA, J.

As to the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and damages for loss of earning capacity in favor of private respondent, we sustain the findings of the CA in so far as they are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, we find the grant of exemplary damages in the present case in order, since the presence of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm has been established.[39] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages for homicide is P30,000.00.[40]

GR No. 181843

2014-07-14

MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

In murder or homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he or she is liable only for physical injuries.[94]

GR No. 181843

2014-07-14

MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

The act of killing becomes frustrated when an offender "perform[s] all the acts of execution which [c]ould produce the [crime]"[99] but did not produce it for reasons independent of his or her will.

GR No. 200304

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. DONALD VASQUEZ Y SANDIGAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Incidentally, the Court notes that both parties in this case admitted that the appellant was a regular employee of the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. Such fact, however, cannot be taken into consideration to increase the penalties in this case to the maximum, in accordance with Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.[66] Such a special aggravating circumstance, i.e., one that which arises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period,[67] was not alleged and charged in the informations. Thus, the same was properly disregarded by the lower courts.

GR No. 191913

2012-03-21

SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. We explained, "Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present."[10] It would "presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative."[11]

GR No. 169084

2012-01-18

PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS

BERSAMIN, J.

Nonetheless, even if we were to believe Arnold and Joven's version of the incident, the element of unlawful aggression by the victims would still be lacking. The allegation that one of the victims had held Winifreda's hand did not indicate that the act had gravely endangered Winifreda's life. Similarly, the victims' supposed motion to draw something from their waists did not put Arnold and Joven's lives in any actual or imminent danger. What the records inform us is that Arnold and Joven did not actually see if the victims had any weapons to draw from their waists. That no weapons belonging to the victims were recovered from the crime scene confirmed their being unarmed. Lastly, had they been only defending themselves, Arnold and Joven did not tell the trial court why they had repeatedly hacked their victims with their bolos; or why they did not themselves even sustain any physical injury. Thus, the CA and the RTC rightly rejected their plea of self-defense and defense of stranger, for the nature and the number of wounds sustained by the victims were important indicia to disprove self-defense.[30]

GR No. 176061

2011-07-04

PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [14] However, once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing. [15] This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order.

GR No. 175023

2010-07-05

GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

In Palaganas v. People,[26] we made the following distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony as follows: 1.) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.

GR No. 181430

2010-03-09

FELIPE RONQUILLO Y GUILLERMO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual and imminent peril.[16] The victim's mere possession of a knife would not suffice to impute unlawful aggression on him as petitioners have not even established that their lives had been actually threatened on account thereof. The victim in fact drew out his knife after he was twice kicked by Ronquillo.

GR No. 179943

2009-06-26

PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO

PERALTA, J.

Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, which are both indivisible penalties. Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating circumstance.[61] It must be remembered that the Informations filed with the RTC alleged the aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm. Pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, such use of an unlicensed firearm is a special and not a generic aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed. As explained by this Court in Palaganas v. People:[62]

GR No. 176609

2008-12-18

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. To constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.[22]

GR NO. 173054

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ELMERCITO MANALO Y DULAY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, the trial court's award of damages must be modified. The P75,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court must be reduced in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence fixing civil indemnity in cases of homicide at P50,000.00.[29] This award of civil indemnity requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and the appellant's responsibility therefor. Anent the award of actual damages, the prosecution was able to prove actual damages in the sum of P44,280.00 which was supported by receipts and appeared to have been actually incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim. We sustain the award of moral damages but it must be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence. Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victims upon sufficient proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury.[30] In the instant case, Florencia Estores, the mother of the victim, testified on the pain and anguish brought about by her son's untimely death. Lastly, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages should be deleted considering that no aggravating circumstance was duly proven. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

	GR No. 189405 2014-11-19	SHERWIN DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
As to the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and damages for loss of earning capacity in favor of private respondent, we sustain the findings of the CA in so far as they are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, we find the grant of exemplary damages in the present case in order, since the presence of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm has been established.[39] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages for homicide is P30,000.00.[40]
	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
In murder or homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he or she is liable only for physical injuries.[94]
	GR No. 181843 2014-07-14	MIGUEL CIRERA Y USTELO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
The act of killing becomes frustrated when an offender "perform[s] all the acts of execution which [c]ould produce the [crime]"[99] but did not produce it for reasons independent of his or her will.
	GR No. 200304 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. DONALD VASQUEZ Y SANDIGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Incidentally, the Court notes that both parties in this case admitted that the appellant was a regular employee of the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. Such fact, however, cannot be taken into consideration to increase the penalties in this case to the maximum, in accordance with Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.[66] Such a special aggravating circumstance, i.e., one that which arises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period,[67] was not alleged and charged in the informations. Thus, the same was properly disregarded by the lower courts.
	GR No. 191913 2012-03-21	SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. We explained, "Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present."[10] It would "presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative."[11]
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
Nonetheless, even if we were to believe Arnold and Joven's version of the incident, the element of unlawful aggression by the victims would still be lacking. The allegation that one of the victims had held Winifreda's hand did not indicate that the act had gravely endangered Winifreda's life. Similarly, the victims' supposed motion to draw something from their waists did not put Arnold and Joven's lives in any actual or imminent danger. What the records inform us is that Arnold and Joven did not actually see if the victims had any weapons to draw from their waists. That no weapons belonging to the victims were recovered from the crime scene confirmed their being unarmed. Lastly, had they been only defending themselves, Arnold and Joven did not tell the trial court why they had repeatedly hacked their victims with their bolos; or why they did not themselves even sustain any physical injury. Thus, the CA and the RTC rightly rejected their plea of self-defense and defense of stranger, for the nature and the number of wounds sustained by the victims were important indicia to disprove self-defense.[30]
	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [14] However, once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing. [15] This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order.
	GR No. 175023 2010-07-05	GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In Palaganas v. People,[26] we made the following distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony as follows: 1.) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.
	GR No. 181430 2010-03-09	FELIPE RONQUILLO Y GUILLERMO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual and imminent peril.[16] The victim's mere possession of a knife would not suffice to impute unlawful aggression on him as petitioners have not even established that their lives had been actually threatened on account thereof. The victim in fact drew out his knife after he was twice kicked by Ronquillo.
	GR No. 179943 2009-06-26	PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON Y HOMO PERALTA, J.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, which are both indivisible penalties. Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating circumstance.[61] It must be remembered that the Informations filed with the RTC alleged the aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm. Pursuant to the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, such use of an unlicensed firearm is a special and not a generic aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed. As explained by this Court in Palaganas v. People:[62]
	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. To constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.[22]
	GR NO. 173054 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ELMERCITO MANALO Y DULAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the trial court's award of damages must be modified. The P75,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court must be reduced in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence fixing civil indemnity in cases of homicide at P50,000.00.[29] This award of civil indemnity requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and the appellant's responsibility therefor. Anent the award of actual damages, the prosecution was able to prove actual damages in the sum of P44,280.00 which was supported by receipts and appeared to have been actually incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim. We sustain the award of moral damages but it must be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudence. Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victims upon sufficient proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury.[30] In the instant case, Florencia Estores, the mother of the victim, testified on the pain and anguish brought about by her son's untimely death. Lastly, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages should be deleted considering that no aggravating circumstance was duly proven. Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE