Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EFREN MATEO Y GARCIA

This case has been cited 399 times or more.

	GR NO. 167180 2007-01-25	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO REYES Y NACE CARPIO MORALES, J.
. . . No mother in her right senses will use her [teen-age] daughter and expose her and herself to a lifetime of ridicule and obloquy just to remove an unwanted husband. Moreover, no woman, like [AAA], would go through the ordeal of allowing her womanhood to be examined and to be questioned in detail about a very shameful experience unless her intent is to obtain justice for her oppression and to punish the dastardly acts of her own father. No daughter would willingly and cold-bloodedly send her own father to death or to a lifetime of imprisonment unless she was telling the truth. And no daughter would willingly lend her hands to denounce her own father for a heinous offense or have him sentenced to a very heavy penalty in support of the infidelity of her mother.[23] The records of the cases were forwarded to this Court for automatic review. By Resolution[24] of August 24, 2004, however, this Court referred the cases to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Mateo.[25]
	GR NO. 173309 2007-01-23	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND PASCUAL Y BAUTISTA TINGA, J.
SO ORDERED.[15] The case was elevated on appeal to this Court. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[16] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals, which rendered the assailed decision affirming with modification the judgment of the trial court thus:
	GR NO. 168444 2006-12-13	PEOPLE v. ROMEO CANARE Y MENDOZA GARCIA, J.
SO ORDERED. From the aforesaid decision, appellant went directly to this Court. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[7] which modified pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court transferred the appeal to the CA for appropriate action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00572.
	GR NO. 173054 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ELMERCITO MANALO Y DULAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Considering the penalty imposed, the case was brought to this Court on automatic review. Hebreo died on November 3, 2003 during the pendency of the appeal.[15] Thus, this appeal concerns only the appellant. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo[16] which modified the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
	GR NO. 168628 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. EMETERIO RICAMORA Y SUELLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The records of the case were originally transmitted to this Court for automatic review. Conformably, however, with People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia[19] which modified Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTCs to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the case cum records was, by Resolution of September 13, 2004, referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Considering that the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[13] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[14] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 169141 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA TINGA, J.
Appellant was found guilty as charged and the judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. In a Resolution[18] dated 6 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 159854-56,[19] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[20]
	GR NO. 170840 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO CARPIO TINGA, J.
Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo,[40] appellant's appeal by way of automatic review was transferred to the Court of Appeals. On 17 October 2005, the appellate court rendered its decision affirming the appellant's conviction, but with modification as to damages awarded to the private complainant. The dispositive portion of the said decision states:
	GR NO. 171447 2006-11-29	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO ARNAIZ Y ARMONIO TINGA, J.
On 9 February 2000, the Court resolved to require the parties to submit their respective briefs.[9] The parties complied. However, the Court issued a Resolution[10] on 25 August 2004, transferring the case to the CA for intermediate review conformably with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[11]
	GR NO. 169430 2006-10-31	PEOPLE v. HENRY BIDOC Y ROQUE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court gravely erred in not considering the Information in Criminal Case No. 11-2000 as insufficient to support a judgment of conviction for failure of the prosecution to state the precise date of commission of the alleged rape, it being an essential element of the crime charged. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[22] the records of the present case were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 167502 2006-10-31	PEOPLE v. PABLO CUDAL CARPIO-MORALES, J.
By Resolution[21] of August 30, 2004, this Court ordered the transfer of the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition conformably with People v. Mateo.[22]
	GR NO. 172116 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. ROGER VILLANUEVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SO ORDERED.[10] Considering the penalty imposed, the case was directly appealed to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo[11] modifying the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court, thus: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged decision AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
	GR NO. 169432 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO TAAN TINGA, J.
Several days after, Ochinang dropped by Taan's house while the latter was having a drink with Romeo Tacadena and Danny Marquez. Taan invited Ochinang to join them. Ochinang acceded. During their conversation, Taan asked Ochinang whether he had heard about the disappearance of the man he had previously been with. Ochinang, in response, told them not to talk anymore and to just keep silent. Taan and the group proceeded to tell Ochinang, "You again killed a person." Ochinang replied, "Just keep your cool and shut up your mouth."[35]Taan was found guilty as charged and the judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. In a Resolution[36] dated 14 September 2004 of the Court in G.R. No. 145508,[37] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Efren Mateo.[38]
	GR NO. 166401 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BON TINGA, J.
As the penalty imposed consisted of eight (8) death sentences, the records of the case were automatically elevated to this Court for review. However, in the aftermath of the pronouncement of the Court in People v. Mateo[27] the present case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 171449 2006-10-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, the accused is hereby order (sic) to pay to the heirs of Chito Arizala P170,805.25 as actual damages, P200,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as death indemnity, P648,000 for the victim's loss of earning capacity and P100,000 as exemplary damages. And to indemnify Taurus Security Agency and Allied Services in the amount of P24,800.[14] Considering that the death penalty was imposed on appellant, the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. There being an automatic review, we denied appellee's motion to dismiss dated 29 March 2005 which claimed that appellant lost his right to appeal in view of his escape from the Rizal Provincial Jail. Conformably with Our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]
	GR NO. 170473 2006-10-12	PEOPLE v. BERNIE TEODORO Y CAPARAS TINGA, J.
The defense of the accused that the victim is an incompetent witness is of no moment. It must be borne in mind that the victim is an innocent, wholesome and naive five-year old girl, that this Court, or anyone for that matter, cannot expect to articulate and verbalize all answers thrown at her. Being a child and a victim of rape, her testimony can be expected to be quite inconsistent and ambiguous although factual.[16] Pursuant to this Court's decision in People vs. Mateo,[17] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals on 7 September 2004. On 30 August 2005, the appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC decision. Sustaining the finding of guilt, the appellate court further ordered appellant to pay P50,000.00 in moral damages,[18] in addition to the earlier award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.[19]
	GR NO. 168476 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE GLORIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The case was then brought to the Court on automatic review in view of the death penalty imposed on the accused. However, with the ruling in People vs. Mateo,[15] that death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment cases shall be reviewed first by the CA before it is elevated to this Court, the case was transferred to the CA per Resolution dated August 31, 2004.[16]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the light of all the foregoing consideration and upon the evidence, accused Honorato Beltran, Jr. y Casia alias "Jun-Jun" is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder charged in the information. Consequently, the accused is hereby sentenced to Reclusion perpetua together with all the accessory penalties inherent therewith and to pay the costs. He is further directed to indemnify the heirs of Norman Concepcion in the sum of P61,000.00 as actual damages and the sum of P75,000.00 as moral damages.[16] Aggrieved, appellant filed a notice of appeal therein on 22 October 2001.[17] Subsequently, on 3 January 2003, appellant filed his Appellant's Brief with this Court assailing the Decision of the RTC dated 9 October 2001. [18] Pursuant to our ruling in the case of People v. Mateo,[19] we issued a Resolution dated 8 November 2004, transferring the instant case to the Court of Appeals for disposition.[20] On 31 March 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the assailed RTC Decision. Aside from reducing the amount of actual damages awarded by the RTC, it also ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Norman an amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
	GR NO. 169872 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARDON TINGA, J.
SO ORDERED.[6] Conformably with the Decision of this Court in People v. Mateo, [7] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review.[8] The appellate court affirmed Gardon's conviction in a Decision[9] dated July 28, 2005. The case is again before us for our final disposition.
	GR NO. 170470 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby denied and judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the death of six (6) people and sentencing her to suffer the mandatory penalty of death, and ordering her to pay the heirs of the victims Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa and children Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr., the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each victim and the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as temperate damages for their burned house or a total of Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos and to Rodolfo Movilla the amount of One Hundred [Thousand] (P100,000.00) Pesos. Due to the death penalty imposed by the RTC, the case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. Conformably with our decision in People v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,[19] however, we referred the case and its records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With a Notice of Appeal[18] filed by appellant, the trial court forwarded the entire records of the case to this Court.[19] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[20] the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
	GR NO. 172870 2006-09-22	PEOPLE v. JUNIOR BANG-AYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SO ORDERED.[24] After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, appellant appealed to this Court. Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo[25] modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure insofar as direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[26]
	GR NO. 171270 2006-09-20	PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER MANGITNGIT TINGA, J.
In view of the foregoing considerations, this Court is led to believe that Alexander Mangitngit sexually abused his own daughters [BBB] aged 15 on January 21, 1999 and his own daughter [CCC] aged 12, on January 29, 1999.[26] The judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. The pleadings on appeal were completed on 11 December 2003.[27] In a Resolution[28] dated 24 August 2004 of the Court in G.R. Nos. 153250-52,[29] the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[30]
	GR NO. 167693 2006-09-19	PEOPLE v. CORONA TINGA, J.
On December 10, 2002, the Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to submit their respective briefs. The parties complied. Pursuant to the case of People v. Efren Mateo,[15] however, the Court issued a Resolution on September 14, 2004, transferring the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
	GR NO. 170837 2006-09-12	PEOPLE v. DEXTER TORRES Y DELA CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[14] The appeal was transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition per Resolution[15] of this Court dated April 6, 2005, in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[16]
	GR NO. 172322 2006-09-08	PEOPLE v. RENE SANTOS TINGA, J.
SO ORDERED.[4] Owing to the imposition of the death penalty, the case was elevated to the Court for automatic review. Pursuant, however, to the ruling in People v. Mateo,[5] the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for evaluation in a Resolution dated September 7, 2004.[6]
	GR NO. 171271 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The case was elevated to this Court because the penalty imposed was death. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[4] the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals.[5]
	GR NO. 169077 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. NICANOR SALOME AZCUNA, J.
SO ORDERED.[8] Due to the imposition of death penalty on appellant, the case was directly elevated to this Court for review. Subsequently, however, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.[9]
	GR NO. 170236 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The case was automatically elevated to this Court by reason of the death penalty imposed on appellant. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[10] the case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals (CA).
	GR NO. 170191 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SUYU CALLEJO, SR., J.
The accused appealed the decision to the Court. After the parties submitted their respective briefs, the Court ordered the transfer of the case to the CA pursuant to its ruling in People v. Mateo. [48]
	GR NO. 169083 2006-08-07	PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Ardel appealed the decision to this Court, which, however, transferred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in deference to the ruling in People v. Efren Mateo.[28]
	GR NO. 169078 2006-03-10	PEOPLE v. RICARDO B. MIRANDA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo[15] appellant's appeal by way of automatic review was transferred to the Court of Appeals. On June 16, 2005, the appellate court rendered its decision[16] affirming appellant's conviction.
	GR No. 168445 2005-11-11	PEOPLE v. CAPT. FLORENCIO O. GASACAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[6] which modified pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as in this case, as well as this Court's Resolution dated September 19, 1995, we resolved on February 2, 2005 to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[7]
	GR NO. 167147 2005-08-03	PEOPLE v. GENARO CAYABYAB Y FERNANDEZ PER CURIAM
The case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo[16] modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure insofar as direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case was transferred to the Court of Appeals,[17] which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court, thus:IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death is AFFIRMED in toto, and accordingly certifies the case and elevate the entire records to the Supreme Court for review pursuant to Rule124, Section 13[a] of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
	GR NO. 159252 2005-03-11	PEOPLE v. ROSARIO “ROSE” OCHOA CALLEJO, SR., J.
After the instant case was transferred by the CA, this Court promulgated People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo,[7] where it was held that appeals from decisions of the RTC, wherein the accused is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, should be made to the CA. Moreover, in Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the Court resolved to revise Rule 122, Section 3(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to read as follows:Sec. 3. How appeal taken. - (a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.