Lawyerly

GR No. 192251

2011-02-16

VELASCO JR., J.

Once a person gains familiarity with another, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victim and eyewitness' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[27] Their positive identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged was categorical and consistent; hence, We cannot cast any doubt on their credibility as prosecution witnesses.[28] As aptly pointed out by the CA: With regard to the purported identification made by defense witnesses ROSALINDA ARENIEGO and ROSENDO TEODORO of the alleged culprits different from the accused-appellants, the Court notes with approval the RTC's observation that between the testimonies of eyewitnesses LIEZL and ANGELITA, and that of defense witnesses ROSALINDA and ROSENDO, the former's declarations were more credible, as they were in fact walking together with the victim when she was shot, while ROSALINDA and ROSENDO were supposedly about fifteen (15) meters away from the crime scene.[29]

GR No. 181900

2010-10-20

PEOPLE v. DEMETRIO SALAZAR

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, given the fact that the CA upheld the findings of the trial court on the factual issues of the case, the Court is bound by the trial court's assessment of the witnesses, as the Court held in People v. Ducabo:[30]

GR No. 176354

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As regards the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellants contend that the prosecution failed to present any evidence to show that the gunmen consciously and deliberately adopted the execution of the crime committed. We however agree with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[26]

GR No. 186493

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO

NACHURA, J.

This Court also agrees with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure their execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[45]

GR No. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of civil indemnity for the death of Pedro in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 was proper, since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and allegation other than the death of the victim.[63]

GR No. 171951

2009-08-28

AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

= P1,229,600 We sustain the trial court's grant of funerary expense of P200,000 as stipulated by the parties[45] and civil indemnity of P50,000.[46] Anent moral damages, the same is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without

GR No. 180594

2009-08-19

PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD

NACHURA, J.

This Court also agrees with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[24]

GR No. 179154

2009-07-31

PEOPLE v. ROGER PEREZ

QUISUMBING, J.

Also, the claim that Roger lacked the motive to commit the crime will not preclude his conviction. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where a reliable eyewitness had fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[27]

GR No. 173791

2009-04-07

PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA

BRION, J.

In People v. Ducabo, we took notice of the human trait that once a person knows another through association, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance; most often, the face and body movements of the person identified has created a lasting impression on the identifier's mind that cannot easily be erased.[81]

GR No. 178198

2008-12-10

PEOPLE v. EVELYN BOHOL Y TALAOGAN

NACHURA, J.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim even without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. The amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial and appellate courts is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[47]

GR No. 181467

2008-08-06

PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The award of civil indemnity for the death of Lobos in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 were proper since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and allegation other than the death of the victim.[38]

GR No. 178540

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[57] When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: 1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; 2) actual or compensatory damages; 3) moral damages; 4) exemplary damages and 5) temperate damages.[58] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are awarded automatically.[59] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim[60] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. [61]

GR No. 178541

2008-03-27

PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[47] Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial to the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[48] It is obvious from the records that Aleine positively and categorically identified appellant as the person who shot Ramon during the incident. Her testimony was corroborated on relevant points by Edwin and Rey.

	GR No. 192251 2011-02-16	PEOPLE v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN TONY TOMAS VELASCO JR., J.
Once a person gains familiarity with another, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression on the victim and eyewitness' minds which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[27] Their positive identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged was categorical and consistent; hence, We cannot cast any doubt on their credibility as prosecution witnesses.[28] As aptly pointed out by the CA: With regard to the purported identification made by defense witnesses ROSALINDA ARENIEGO and ROSENDO TEODORO of the alleged culprits different from the accused-appellants, the Court notes with approval the RTC's observation that between the testimonies of eyewitnesses LIEZL and ANGELITA, and that of defense witnesses ROSALINDA and ROSENDO, the former's declarations were more credible, as they were in fact walking together with the victim when she was shot, while ROSALINDA and ROSENDO were supposedly about fifteen (15) meters away from the crime scene.[29]
	GR No. 181900 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. DEMETRIO SALAZAR VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, given the fact that the CA upheld the findings of the trial court on the factual issues of the case, the Court is bound by the trial court's assessment of the witnesses, as the Court held in People v. Ducabo:[30]
	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As regards the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellants contend that the prosecution failed to present any evidence to show that the gunmen consciously and deliberately adopted the execution of the crime committed. We however agree with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[26]
	GR No. 186493 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO HERNANDO Y AQUINO NACHURA, J.
This Court also agrees with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure their execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[45]
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of civil indemnity for the death of Pedro in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 was proper, since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and allegation other than the death of the victim.[63]
	GR No. 171951 2009-08-28	AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
= P1,229,600 We sustain the trial court's grant of funerary expense of P200,000 as stipulated by the parties[45] and civil indemnity of P50,000.[46] Anent moral damages, the same is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without
	GR No. 180594 2009-08-19	PEOPLE v. VS.ISMAEL MOKAMMAD NACHURA, J.
This Court also agrees with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. As we have consistently ruled, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.[24]
	GR No. 179154 2009-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROGER PEREZ QUISUMBING, J.
Also, the claim that Roger lacked the motive to commit the crime will not preclude his conviction. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where a reliable eyewitness had fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[27]
	GR No. 173791 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA BRION, J.
In People v. Ducabo, we took notice of the human trait that once a person knows another through association, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance; most often, the face and body movements of the person identified has created a lasting impression on the identifier's mind that cannot easily be erased.[81]
	GR No. 178198 2008-12-10	PEOPLE v. EVELYN BOHOL Y TALAOGAN NACHURA, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim even without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. The amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial and appellate courts is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[47]
	GR No. 181467 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The award of civil indemnity for the death of Lobos in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 were proper since they are mandatory in murder cases without need of proof and allegation other than the death of the victim.[38]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[57] When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: 1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; 2) actual or compensatory damages; 3) moral damages; 4) exemplary damages and 5) temperate damages.[58] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are awarded automatically.[59] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim[60] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. [61]
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[47] Where a reliable eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the felony, motive becomes immaterial to the successful prosecution of a criminal case.[48] It is obvious from the records that Aleine positively and categorically identified appellant as the person who shot Ramon during the incident. Her testimony was corroborated on relevant points by Edwin and Rey.

PEOPLE v. JUNJUN DUCABO