Lawyerly

GR No. 181354

2013-02-27

MENDOZA, J.

"Moreover, it should be stressed that the Sandiganbayan, which functions in divisions of three Justices each, is a collegial body which arrives at its decisions only after deliberation, the exchange of view and ideas, and the concurrence of the required majority vote."[27]

GR No. 177743

2012-01-25

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO

BERSAMIN, J.

By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the death of Olais. It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability.[22] Having thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court,[23] and he would be held criminally liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[24] He should discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.[25] Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end of the proceedings.

GR No. 179035

2008-04-16

PEOPLE v. JESUS PAYCANA

TINGA, J,

In any event, self-defense on the part of appellant is further negated by the physical evidence in the case. Specifically, the number of wounds, fourteen (14) in all, indicates that appellant's act was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim.[19] The victim died of multiple organ failure secondary to multiple stab wounds.[20]

GR NO. 150648

2007-11-23

ROSENDO TANDOC Y DE LEON v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

On the issue of self-defense, we adopt the finding of both the RTC and CA. Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense is a factual issue. By invoking self-defense, Rosendo, in fact, admitted that he inflicted injuries on Mario. The burden of proving with clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances to exculpate him from criminal liability was thereby shifted to him.[30] We find appropriate the RTC's disquisition on the matter, thus:In particular, the Court cannot believe the allegation of the accused [Rosendo] that it was [Mario] Candaliza who drew a knife. The Court observed that [Mario] Candaliza is much bigger than the accused [Rosendo] and could easily beat the accused [Rosendo] in a one-on-one fistfight. There was no need for him to use a knife. By the same token, it was the accused [Rosendo] who needed a knife to fight [Mario] Candaliza. Furthermore, [Mario] Candaliza was scheduled to leave for abroad the very next day. Why should he provoke a fight and risk losing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?

GR NO. 174775

2007-10-11

PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY

CARPIO, J.

When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to such amount as indemnity for death without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[21] Consistent with recent jurisprudence, we award the heirs of Marcelina Hidalgo P50,000 and the heirs of Elmer Hidalgo P50,000 as indemnity for their deaths.[22] However, we reduce the award of moral damages from P75,000 to P50,000 and the award of exemplary damages from P50,000 to P25,000.[23]

GR NO. 168818

2007-03-09

NILO SABANG v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused has admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, "for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing." Thus, petitioner must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor.[28]

GR NO. 169060

2007-02-06

PEOPLE v. JOEY CONCEPCION Y PEREZ

TINGA, J.

We find that appellant has miserably failed to demonstrate that the death of Nicolas had occurred on the occasion of a legitimate self-defense on his part. The accused, in cases of self-defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence since he admits the commission of the alleged criminal act.[31] One who admits the infliction of injuries which caused the death of another has the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing evidence, for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.[32] Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted. If the accused's evidence is of doubtful veracity, and it is not clear and convincing, the defense must necessarily fail.[33]

GR NO. 171271

2006-08-31

PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We agree with the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that appellant's claim of self-defense is self-serving hence should not be given credence. In Cabuslay v. People,[7] we ruled that:One who invokes self defense admits responsibility for the killing. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger. With clear and convincing evidence, all the following elements of self defense must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self defense.

GR NO. 150723

2006-07-11

RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person.[33] A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,[34] unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[35] There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in real peril.[36]

GR NO. 163217

2006-04-18

CELESTINO MARTURILLAS v. PEOPLE

PANGANIBAN, CJ

We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex delicto[69] to the heirs of the victim. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to this amount as indemnity for the death, without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[70] As to actual damages, we note that the prosecution was able to establish sufficiently only P22,200 for funeral and burial costs. The rest of the expenses, although presented, were not duly receipted. We cannot simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has already ruled, though, that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 for temperate damages is justified, in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[71] In effect, the award granted by the lower court is upheld.

GR NO. 158904

2005-12-16

ORLANDO SOLIS UNGSOD v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In a criminal proceeding, an appeal throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[30] We have reviewed the records of this case and determined that the trial court committed no error in awarding attorney's fees in favor of private complainants. Under Article 2208 (11) of the Civil Code, attorney's fees can be awarded where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In this case, it is only proper to sustain the award of attorney's fees considering that Daisy Gayutin, the victim's wife, testified that she hired the services of a private prosecutor.[31]

	GR No. 181354 2013-02-27	SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
"Moreover, it should be stressed that the Sandiganbayan, which functions in divisions of three Justices each, is a collegial body which arrives at its decisions only after deliberation, the exchange of view and ideas, and the concurrence of the required majority vote."[27]
	GR No. 177743 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO BERSAMIN, J.
By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the death of Olais. It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability.[22] Having thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court,[23] and he would be held criminally liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[24] He should discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.[25] Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end of the proceedings.
	GR No. 179035 2008-04-16	PEOPLE v. JESUS PAYCANA TINGA, J,
In any event, self-defense on the part of appellant is further negated by the physical evidence in the case. Specifically, the number of wounds, fourteen (14) in all, indicates that appellant's act was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim.[19] The victim died of multiple organ failure secondary to multiple stab wounds.[20]
	GR NO. 150648 2007-11-23	ROSENDO TANDOC Y DE LEON v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
On the issue of self-defense, we adopt the finding of both the RTC and CA. Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense is a factual issue. By invoking self-defense, Rosendo, in fact, admitted that he inflicted injuries on Mario. The burden of proving with clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances to exculpate him from criminal liability was thereby shifted to him.[30] We find appropriate the RTC's disquisition on the matter, thus:In particular, the Court cannot believe the allegation of the accused [Rosendo] that it was [Mario] Candaliza who drew a knife. The Court observed that [Mario] Candaliza is much bigger than the accused [Rosendo] and could easily beat the accused [Rosendo] in a one-on-one fistfight. There was no need for him to use a knife. By the same token, it was the accused [Rosendo] who needed a knife to fight [Mario] Candaliza. Furthermore, [Mario] Candaliza was scheduled to leave for abroad the very next day. Why should he provoke a fight and risk losing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
	GR NO. 174775 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. MAMERTO DULAY CARPIO, J.
When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to such amount as indemnity for death without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[21] Consistent with recent jurisprudence, we award the heirs of Marcelina Hidalgo P50,000 and the heirs of Elmer Hidalgo P50,000 as indemnity for their deaths.[22] However, we reduce the award of moral damages from P75,000 to P50,000 and the award of exemplary damages from P50,000 to P25,000.[23]
	GR NO. 168818 2007-03-09	NILO SABANG v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused has admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, "for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing." Thus, petitioner must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor.[28]
	GR NO. 169060 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. JOEY CONCEPCION Y PEREZ TINGA, J.
We find that appellant has miserably failed to demonstrate that the death of Nicolas had occurred on the occasion of a legitimate self-defense on his part. The accused, in cases of self-defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence since he admits the commission of the alleged criminal act.[31] One who admits the infliction of injuries which caused the death of another has the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing evidence, for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.[32] Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted. If the accused's evidence is of doubtful veracity, and it is not clear and convincing, the defense must necessarily fail.[33]
	GR NO. 171271 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree with the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that appellant's claim of self-defense is self-serving hence should not be given credence. In Cabuslay v. People,[7] we ruled that:One who invokes self defense admits responsibility for the killing. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger. With clear and convincing evidence, all the following elements of self defense must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self defense.
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person.[33] A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,[34] unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[35] There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in real peril.[36]
	GR NO. 163217 2006-04-18	CELESTINO MARTURILLAS v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, CJ
We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex delicto[69] to the heirs of the victim. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to this amount as indemnity for the death, without need of any evidence or proof of damages.[70] As to actual damages, we note that the prosecution was able to establish sufficiently only P22,200 for funeral and burial costs. The rest of the expenses, although presented, were not duly receipted. We cannot simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has already ruled, though, that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 for temperate damages is justified, in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount.[71] In effect, the award granted by the lower court is upheld.
	GR NO. 158904 2005-12-16	ORLANDO SOLIS UNGSOD v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a criminal proceeding, an appeal throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[30] We have reviewed the records of this case and determined that the trial court committed no error in awarding attorney's fees in favor of private complainants. Under Article 2208 (11) of the Civil Code, attorney's fees can be awarded where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In this case, it is only proper to sustain the award of attorney's fees considering that Daisy Gayutin, the victim's wife, testified that she hired the services of a private prosecutor.[31]

JOVITO CABUSLAY v. PEOPLE