Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NARCISO RAMOS Y MATIAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 186420 2009-08-25	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ANOD NACHURA, J.
Indubitably, the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend, directly and specifically, to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense or retaliatory act which the victim might make. Here, appellant tied Costan while the latter was lying down before he and Lumbayan stabbed the latter to death; thus, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. Obviously, Costan could not flee for his life or retaliate. This aggravating circumstance qualifies the crime to murder.[12]
	GR No. 173588 2009-04-22	ARIEL M. LOS BAÑOS v. JOEL R. PEDRO BRION, J.
Fourth, a motion to quash is allowed before the arraignment (Section 1, Rule 117); there may be a provisional dismissal of the case even when the trial proper of the case is already underway provided that the required consents are present.[27]
	GR No. 160811 2008-04-18	RICKY BASTIAN v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the testimony of Nemelyn Tulio can be discarded, petitioner's conviction founded on the positive declarations of eyewitness Lorna Bandiola still stands on terra firma. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.[28] People v. Ramos,[29] quoting People v. Toyco,[30] is good authority with the following pronouncement:It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge of murder.[31]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The presence of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in union with each other, evincing a common purpose or design.[39] It is clear from the testimony of Inspector Cortez that appellants were of one mind in selling shabu to Inspector Cortez as shown by their acts before, during and after the transaction, to wit: (1) Vladimir asked Inspector Cortez to show him the money; (2) Vladimir fetched Edgardo and Vicente; (3) Edgardo brought out three plastic bags containing shabu; (4) Vicente brought out a digital weighing scale; (5) appellants assisted each other in weighing the three plastic bags of shabu; and (6) Vladimir received the money from Inspector Cortez.[40] Conspiracy having been established, appellants are liable as co-principals regardless of their participation.[41]
	GR No. 175942 2007-09-13	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM GARCIA, J.
Pertinently, as defined by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of Murder is committed by a person who kills another with treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense or retaliatory act which the victim might make.[36]
	GR NO. 156248 2007-08-28	MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.[21] In the determination of the sufficiency of evidence, what matters is not the number of witnesses but their credibility and the nature and quality of their testimonies.[22] The testimony of a lone witness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. While the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatest number.[23]
	GR No. 130531 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SIMON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We affirm the award of moral damages, there being proof that the victim's mother and her family suffered wounded feeling, mental anguish and similar injury. However, we reduce the award to P50,000.00.[63] Verily, moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs; rather they are awarded to allow them to obtain means for diversion that could serve to alleviate their moral and psychological suffering.[64]