Lawyerly

GR No. 181753

2013-10-09

BERSAMIN, J.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim.[22] Hence, treachery is absent when the victim was placed on his guard, like when a heated argument has preceded the attack,[23] or when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants.[24]

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE

VELASCO JR., J.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[59] In People v. Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61] People v. Buban,[62] People v. Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

GR No. 182555

2010-09-07

LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellants, they are not eligible for parole following Section 3 of said law which provides:[189]

GR No. 177983

2010-03-30

PEOPLE v. DANTE JADAP

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[35]

GR No. 176609

2008-12-18

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have earlier found the sole testimony of Paradero to be more credible than that of petitioner, even if the latter's testimony was corroborated by Artiaga on some relevant points. Paradero's account of the incident was clear and consistent. On the other hand, petitioner's narration of the incident, though corroborated by Artiaga, hardly inspires belief, as it does not conform to reason and human experience. Further, the RTC and CA upheld the sole testimony of Paradero over that of petitioner. They concluded that petitioner failed to prove his claim of self-defense despite the fact that her testimony was corroborated by Artiaga. Basic is the rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve great weight and respect especially when affirmed by the appellate court.[46] We found no compelling reason to disturb the ruling of both courts. Given the foregoing, Paradero's testimony outweighs the testimonies of petitioner and Artiaga.

GR No. 182192

2008-10-29

PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant's assertion that he was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is meritorious. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) that the surrender was voluntary.[56]

GR No. 180451

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is not enough since bias and partiality can never be presumed.[81] There was no plausible proof that Judge Vidal was bias. On the contrary, the records show that Judge Vidal was fair and considerate to both prosecution and defense. We have examined the RTC Decision and found that it contains sufficient factual and legal basis. In the said 47-page Decision, Judge Vidal has thoroughly and extensively discussed the facts and the law on which appellants' conviction for rape were based.

GR No. 179718

2008-09-17

PEOPLE v. LOURDES V. LEGASPI

CORONA, J.

Moreover, her averment that the search was not made in her presence has no basis. The RTC held, and the CA affirmed, that the prosecution witnesses (namely the police officers who conducted the search) were very straightforward and consistent in their testimonies that it was made in the presence of the appellant herself and the barangay tanod. Thus, it so bore all the earmarks of truth that it would be difficult not to give credence to it.[7] Furthermore, no improper motive could successfully be ascribed to the law enforcers for implicating appellant in the commission of the offense.[8]

GR No. 181467

2008-08-06

PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A They both ran away sir.[21] It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.[22]

GR No. 174479

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA

BRION, J.

The crime committed by the appellant is murder qualified by treachery penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659)[73] with reclusion perpetua to death.[74] The proven use of an unlicensed firearm adds an aggravating circumstance to the crime pursuant to Republic Act No. 8294[75] and its established jurisprudence.[76] Consequently, the CA did not err when it upheld the trial court's imposition of the death penalty under Article 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code.[77]

GR No. 179499

2008-04-30

PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is sustained. The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[17] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[18] Though the penalty imposed on appellant was reduced to reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity to be awarded remains at P75,000.00.

GR No. 178541

2008-03-27

PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in the case of Aleine, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.[41]

	GR No. 181753 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. RAMON PLACER BERSAMIN, J.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim.[22] Hence, treachery is absent when the victim was placed on his guard, like when a heated argument has preceded the attack,[23] or when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants.[24]
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[59] In People v. Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61] People v. Buban,[62] People v. Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellants, they are not eligible for parole following Section 3 of said law which provides:[189]
	GR No. 177983 2010-03-30	PEOPLE v. DANTE JADAP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[35]
	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have earlier found the sole testimony of Paradero to be more credible than that of petitioner, even if the latter's testimony was corroborated by Artiaga on some relevant points. Paradero's account of the incident was clear and consistent. On the other hand, petitioner's narration of the incident, though corroborated by Artiaga, hardly inspires belief, as it does not conform to reason and human experience. Further, the RTC and CA upheld the sole testimony of Paradero over that of petitioner. They concluded that petitioner failed to prove his claim of self-defense despite the fact that her testimony was corroborated by Artiaga. Basic is the rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve great weight and respect especially when affirmed by the appellate court.[46] We found no compelling reason to disturb the ruling of both courts. Given the foregoing, Paradero's testimony outweighs the testimonies of petitioner and Artiaga.
	GR No. 182192 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. AGRIPINO GUEVARRA Y MULINGTAPANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant's assertion that he was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is meritorious. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) that the surrender was voluntary.[56]
	GR No. 180451 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARNULFO A. AURE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is not enough since bias and partiality can never be presumed.[81] There was no plausible proof that Judge Vidal was bias. On the contrary, the records show that Judge Vidal was fair and considerate to both prosecution and defense. We have examined the RTC Decision and found that it contains sufficient factual and legal basis. In the said 47-page Decision, Judge Vidal has thoroughly and extensively discussed the facts and the law on which appellants' conviction for rape were based.
	GR No. 179718 2008-09-17	PEOPLE v. LOURDES V. LEGASPI CORONA, J.
Moreover, her averment that the search was not made in her presence has no basis. The RTC held, and the CA affirmed, that the prosecution witnesses (namely the police officers who conducted the search) were very straightforward and consistent in their testimonies that it was made in the presence of the appellant herself and the barangay tanod. Thus, it so bore all the earmarks of truth that it would be difficult not to give credence to it.[7] Furthermore, no improper motive could successfully be ascribed to the law enforcers for implicating appellant in the commission of the offense.[8]
	GR No. 181467 2008-08-06	PEOPLE v. AMBROSIO GOLEAS Y LIMUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A They both ran away sir.[21] It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.[22]
	GR No. 174479 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. ZALDY GARCIA Y ANCHETA BRION, J.
The crime committed by the appellant is murder qualified by treachery penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659)[73] with reclusion perpetua to death.[74] The proven use of an unlicensed firearm adds an aggravating circumstance to the crime pursuant to Republic Act No. 8294[75] and its established jurisprudence.[76] Consequently, the CA did not err when it upheld the trial court's imposition of the death penalty under Article 63(1) of the Revised Penal Code.[77]
	GR No. 179499 2008-04-30	PEOPLE v. TORIBIO JABINIAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is sustained. The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[17] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[18] Though the penalty imposed on appellant was reduced to reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity to be awarded remains at P75,000.00.
	GR No. 178541 2008-03-27	PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in the case of Aleine, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder.[41]

ARNALDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE