Lawyerly

GR No. 188322

2012-04-11

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Both eyewitnesses testified on how Asilan attacked Adovas from behind. Adovas could not have defended himself because Asilan stabbed him at his back repeatedly sans provocation or warning. The deciding factor is that Asilan's execution of his attack made it impossible for Adovas to defend himself or retaliate.[46]

GR No. 171526

2010-09-01

RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

We are not likewise impressed with petitioner's assertion that the case against him was weakened with the failure to present Reinerio, the other eyewitness to the commission of the crime and one of the prosecution's proposed witnesses. As a rule, "the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. [It] need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."[23] Here, the testimony of Reinerio would merely corroborate the statements of Rodelio on the witness stand, which when considered together with the other evidence presented by the prosecution, established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the petitioner and his cohorts. Further, there is nothing on record which would show that Rodelio was actuated by ill motive or hate in imputing a serious offense of robbery with homicide against the petitioner.

GR No. 176066

2010-08-11

PEOPLE v. ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. The Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[33]

GR No. 171085

2009-03-17

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO 'RUDY' SORIANO

QUISUMBING, J.

Well settled is the rule that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness is sufficient for conviction.[17] Likewise, the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. It need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. We have ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[18]

GR No. 178233

2008-12-04

JOSEPH A. GANDOL v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[34] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[35] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[36] Neither did the presence of "defense wounds" on the body of the victim rule out treachery.[37]

GR No. 177276

2008-08-20

GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[23] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[24] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[25] In the instant case, the victim who fixed his attention to what he was doing and was unwary of what the assailants were about to do, and without warning, was suddenly mauled by the three. When he was about to get out from the canal, he was again hit. The barrage of bodily harm inflicted on the victim culminated in the stabbing. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression. He was unarmed when he was attacked. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. While he was at some point able to avoid some of the stab blows, that does not mean that the aggression was not sudden. The survival instinct, which is inherent in every extant human being, may have worked well for the victim, or he might just have been fortunate to escape some of the thrusts dealt him, but these things would not negate the presence of treachery. Contrary to petitioner's claim, there was no heated argument preceding the aggression. Victim Rommel Camacho merely testified that when he was ordered by Jeffrey to get out of the way, he answered that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. Jeffrey's order and the victim's answer can hardly be considered as a heated argument.

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[58] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[59] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[60]

GR NO. 173197

2007-04-24

PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[17] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[18] In the instant case, the victim was, without warning, bludgeoned by appellant at the back of her head. When she fell to the ground, appellant again hit her twice with the lead pipe. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the aggression. She was unarmed when she was clubbed. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous.

GR NO. 172324

2007-04-04

PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Thus, this Court has ruled that even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[21] Treachery can still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his/her person.[22] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[23] In the present case, the victim did not even have sufficient warning of the danger that was looming, since the attack against her came from behind and was so sudden and unexpected, thus giving the victim no time to flee or to prepare her defense or enable her to offer the least resistance to the sudden assault.

GR No. 148518

2004-04-15

PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA

PER CURIAM

Moreover, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, who had a unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude.[112] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.[113] As reiterated in numerous cases, a witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and convincing manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[114] This is especially so in this case, since prosecution witnesses Jefferson Tan and Feliciano Tan were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against either appellant. When there is no evidence to indicate that the witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and that his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[115]

GR No. 139297

2004-02-23

PEOPLE v. RENATO

PUNO, J.

The trial court did not err in giving credence to Erlinda's testimony in court as it is consistent with her sworn statement on all other matters and is corroborated on material points by the testimony of Cherry Francisco. Repeatedly, this Court has ruled that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[13] Moreover, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[14]

GR No. 147231

2004-02-18

PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

On the other hand, exemplary damages must be awarded in view of the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to Murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender. Thus, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[30]

GR Nos. 132310 & 143968-69

2004-01-20

PEOPLE v. FELIPE DEMATE Y LOGANA

QUISUMBING, J.

However, there is need to modify the award of damages. In Criminal Case No. 8511, following current case law, the heirs of Jaime Ricablanca are entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. The award of moral damages, however, should be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.[72] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be awarded, considering the attendance of treachery, which qualified the killing to murder.[73] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed in its generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise.

	GR No. 188322 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ASILAN Y TABORNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Both eyewitnesses testified on how Asilan attacked Adovas from behind. Adovas could not have defended himself because Asilan stabbed him at his back repeatedly sans provocation or warning. The deciding factor is that Asilan's execution of his attack made it impossible for Adovas to defend himself or retaliate.[46]
	GR No. 171526 2010-09-01	RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
We are not likewise impressed with petitioner's assertion that the case against him was weakened with the failure to present Reinerio, the other eyewitness to the commission of the crime and one of the prosecution's proposed witnesses. As a rule, "the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. [It] need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."[23] Here, the testimony of Reinerio would merely corroborate the statements of Rodelio on the witness stand, which when considered together with the other evidence presented by the prosecution, established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the petitioner and his cohorts. Further, there is nothing on record which would show that Rodelio was actuated by ill motive or hate in imputing a serious offense of robbery with homicide against the petitioner.
	GR No. 176066 2010-08-11	PEOPLE v. ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. The prosecution need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. The Court has ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[33]
	GR No. 171085 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO 'RUDY' SORIANO QUISUMBING, J.
Well settled is the rule that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness is sufficient for conviction.[17] Likewise, the prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. It need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. We have ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[18]
	GR No. 178233 2008-12-04	JOSEPH A. GANDOL v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[34] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[35] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[36] Neither did the presence of "defense wounds" on the body of the victim rule out treachery.[37]
	GR No. 177276 2008-08-20	GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[23] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[24] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[25] In the instant case, the victim who fixed his attention to what he was doing and was unwary of what the assailants were about to do, and without warning, was suddenly mauled by the three. When he was about to get out from the canal, he was again hit. The barrage of bodily harm inflicted on the victim culminated in the stabbing. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression. He was unarmed when he was attacked. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous. While he was at some point able to avoid some of the stab blows, that does not mean that the aggression was not sudden. The survival instinct, which is inherent in every extant human being, may have worked well for the victim, or he might just have been fortunate to escape some of the thrusts dealt him, but these things would not negate the presence of treachery. Contrary to petitioner's claim, there was no heated argument preceding the aggression. Victim Rommel Camacho merely testified that when he was ordered by Jeffrey to get out of the way, he answered that the road was wide enough for the tricycle to pass through. Jeffrey's order and the victim's answer can hardly be considered as a heated argument.
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[58] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[59] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[60]
	GR NO. 173197 2007-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROGER DE GUZMAN Y LAUCHANGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[16] Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[17] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[18] In the instant case, the victim was, without warning, bludgeoned by appellant at the back of her head. When she fell to the ground, appellant again hit her twice with the lead pipe. Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the aggression. She was unarmed when she was clubbed. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim was treacherous.
	GR NO. 172324 2007-04-04	PEOPLE v. CELINO NABONG Y OSENAR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.[20] Thus, this Court has ruled that even frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.[21] Treachery can still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his/her person.[22] What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.[23] In the present case, the victim did not even have sufficient warning of the danger that was looming, since the attack against her came from behind and was so sudden and unexpected, thus giving the victim no time to flee or to prepare her defense or enable her to offer the least resistance to the sudden assault.
	GR No. 148518 2004-04-15	PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA PER CURIAM
Moreover, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, who had a unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude.[112] Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.[113] As reiterated in numerous cases, a witness who testifies in a clear, positive, and convincing manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[114] This is especially so in this case, since prosecution witnesses Jefferson Tan and Feliciano Tan were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against either appellant. When there is no evidence to indicate that the witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and that his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[115]
	GR No. 139297 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. RENATO PUNO, J.
The trial court did not err in giving credence to Erlinda's testimony in court as it is consistent with her sworn statement on all other matters and is corroborated on material points by the testimony of Cherry Francisco. Repeatedly, this Court has ruled that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[13] Moreover, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[14]
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On the other hand, exemplary damages must be awarded in view of the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to Murder. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender. Thus, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[30]
	GR Nos. 132310 & 143968-69 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. FELIPE DEMATE Y LOGANA QUISUMBING, J.
However, there is need to modify the award of damages. In Criminal Case No. 8511, following current case law, the heirs of Jaime Ricablanca are entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. The award of moral damages, however, should be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.[72] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be awarded, considering the attendance of treachery, which qualified the killing to murder.[73] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed in its generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise.

PEOPLE v. LEONILO PIDOY Y LANGRIO