Lawyerly

GR No. 141087

2004-03-31

PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

There being no unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense, complete or incomplete.[23]

GR No. 149887

2004-02-13

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO ALLAWAN Y LANDEZA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The appellants' contentions do not hold water. In denying having shot and killed the victim, the appellants thereby assailed the credibility of Sabroso, Dela Cruz and Cordova. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and the probative weight thereof and its conclusions based on the said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing, at close range, the demeanor, conduct and deportment of the witnesses as they testify. If the trial court overlooked, ignored or misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which if considered would change the outcome of the case, the appellate court may formulate its own findings and conclusions.[12]

GR No. 147314

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The crime is aggravated by dwelling.[27] Although the appellant and the victim lived in the same house, the appellant and his family rented a room, while Purita lived in another.[28] However, dwelling was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[29] The crime was committed before the Revised Rules took effect, but the same should be applied retroactively, as it is favorable to the appellant.[30]

GR No. 152358

2004-02-05

CONRADO CASITAS v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

"The accused would want to picture and make believe this Court (sic) that there was the actual, sudden and unexpected attack on his person by the victim when he narrated to us that while walking and at the same time strumming his guitar he was pelted with stones by Benhur Bonaobra and suddenly hacked by Romeo Boringot; it was during the second hacking blow by the victim on him that he remembered that he has (sic) a bolo and engaged the victim to a duel; would this claim by the accused sounds (sic) not strange, contrary to human perception if not next to impossibility? Why on the first blow was he not hit when according to him it was so sudden? Why during the duel was he not hit with a single blow by the bolo of the victim? His injuries as per testimony of Dr. Ray Magayanes and as reflected in the medical certificate were all linear abrasion and hematoma and which according to the doctor were not caused by the bolo; whereas, the victim suffered 11 injuries and most of which were hacking (sic) wounds."[6] The settled rule is that whether or not the accused acted in self-defense, complete or incomplete, is a factual issue. And the legal aphorism is that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case.[7] We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings and its conclusion.

GR No. 134766

2004-01-16

PEOPLE v. ELPEDIO TORRES Y CAÑETE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Although the crime was committed before the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect, the same should be applied retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant.[22] Hence, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should not be appreciated against him.

GR No. 140618

2003-12-10

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A Sinumpaang Salaysay or a sworn statement is merely a short narrative subscribed to by the complainant in question and answer form. Thus, it is only to be expected that it is not as exhaustive as one's testimony in open court. The contradictions, if any, may be explained by the fact that an affidavit can not possibly disclose the details in their entirety, and may inaccurately describe, without deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. Being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from the want of suggestions and inquiries. It has thus been held that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford her a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her.[69] As for the other alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they refer to minor and collateral matters, not to an essential element of the crime, [70] and do not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim. Moreover, minor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related factors. [71] In fact, they bolster rather than weaken their credibility as they erase any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed.[72] What is important is that both Felipe and Benjamin were consistent in positively identifying appellant as the person who shot their father.

GR No. 141527

2003-09-04

PEOPLE v. RANDY BOCALAN Y GATDULA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The imposable penalty for attempted robbery with homicide in Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty under the provisions of the Code. In this case, the appellant and his cohorts killed the victim with abuse of superior strength. They relied not only on their superiority in number but also on their weapons when they killed the victim. Hence, they committed murder.[26] However, for abuse of superior strength to be aggravating or qualifying, the same must be alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[27] Abuse of superior strength was not thus alleged in the Information. Although the crime was committed before the effectivity of the said Rule, the same should be applied retroactively as it will be favorable to the appellant.[28] Hence, the appellant is guilty only of attempted robbery with homicide.

GR No. 132218

2003-07-24

PEOPLE v. JOSE NAVARRO

PER CURIAM

As to the damages awarded, however, we find that some modifications need to be made. Jurisprudence has held that in cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 should be awarded to the heirs of the victim, together with P50,000.00 in moral damages.[49] Temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded if the prosecution failed, as in this case, to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to prove actual damages incurred by the heirs of the victim.[50]

GR No. 121828

2003-06-27

PEOPLE v. EDMAR AGUILOS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The trial court correctly directed the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselita Capa the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in accord with current jurisprudence.[44] The said heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000, also conformably to current jurisprudence.[45] In addition, the heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[46]

GR No. 122109

2003-06-25

PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO

AZCUNA, J.

We also re-compute the loss of earning capacity using the formula provided in People v. Garcia, et al.[52] as follows: Age of Victim = 46 years old Life Expectancy = 2/3 (80 - age of victim at the time of his death) = 22.67 Gross Annual Income = P48,000 Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income = P24,000 Loss of Earning = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Capacity Income - Living Expenses) = 22.67 x P24,000 = P544,080 In line with current jurisprudence, we also award moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 and P25,000 respectively.[53] The award by the trial court of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death is affirmed.

GR No. 126113

2003-06-25

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO GUIHAMA Y BARANDA

AZCUNA, J.

We also award damages for loss of earning capacity using the formula laid out in People v. Garcia, et al., as follows:[41]

GR No. 125305

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR

CALLEJO, SR., J.

a I don't think so, sir. q It may have been also inflicted totally with a sharp instrument? a Yes, sir. q Immediately preceding the alleged shooting?[54] ... q You also said that the assailant here would have been far, would (7) meters considered far to you? a Yes, sir. q Since this patient has no gun powder [sic] burst we could not determine how far the victim from the assailant? a No, sir.[55] Besides, the absence of gunpowder at or near the entrance of the wound will not preclude near fire because other factors might have intervened.[56]

GR Nos. 131926 & 138991

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The crimes committed by the appellant were aggravated by dwelling,[84] the victims having been kidnapped in their house; by the use of motor vehicle,[85] the victims having been transported by the appellant from their house with the use of George's car; and by a band, the crime having been committed by the appellant and three co-conspirators.[86] However, the Court cannot consider these aggravating circumstances in determining the proper penalties for the said crimes, because the same were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[87] Although the said rules took effect after the commission of the crimes by the appellant, the same is favorable to the appellant; hence, should be applied retroactively.[88]

GR No. 95901

2003-06-16

PEOPLE v. CRISTITO SIBONGA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

With respect to the other accused, namely, Bodwin Veranio, Manuel Sibonga, Antonio Sibonga, Eufrecino Sibonga, Cristito Sibonga, Macario Casipong and Cenon Bulagao, the Court finds their denial and alibi unconvincing and undeserving of belief. In the first place eyewitness Gaudioso Isogan (sic) positively and clearly declared that he saw said accused participate in stabbing Gaudioso Kostanilla and throwing the latter's body to the precipice. That Gaudioso Isogan was present and an eyewitness when Gaudioso Kostanilla was killed is not disputed. ...[22] Case law has it that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.[23] The Court has reviewed the records of this case and finds no basis for overruling the trial court's finding that the accused and the appellants stabbed the victim, and its conclusion that the accused and the appellants were criminally liable for the death of the victim as principals by direct participation.

	GR No. 141087 2004-03-31	PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG CARPIO MORALES, J.
There being no unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense, complete or incomplete.[23]
	GR No. 149887 2004-02-13	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO ALLAWAN Y LANDEZA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appellants' contentions do not hold water. In denying having shot and killed the victim, the appellants thereby assailed the credibility of Sabroso, Dela Cruz and Cordova. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and the probative weight thereof and its conclusions based on the said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing, at close range, the demeanor, conduct and deportment of the witnesses as they testify. If the trial court overlooked, ignored or misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which if considered would change the outcome of the case, the appellate court may formulate its own findings and conclusions.[12]
	GR No. 147314 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO M. SANTIAGO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The crime is aggravated by dwelling.[27] Although the appellant and the victim lived in the same house, the appellant and his family rented a room, while Purita lived in another.[28] However, dwelling was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[29] The crime was committed before the Revised Rules took effect, but the same should be applied retroactively, as it is favorable to the appellant.[30]
	GR No. 152358 2004-02-05	CONRADO CASITAS v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
"The accused would want to picture and make believe this Court (sic) that there was the actual, sudden and unexpected attack on his person by the victim when he narrated to us that while walking and at the same time strumming his guitar he was pelted with stones by Benhur Bonaobra and suddenly hacked by Romeo Boringot; it was during the second hacking blow by the victim on him that he remembered that he has (sic) a bolo and engaged the victim to a duel; would this claim by the accused sounds (sic) not strange, contrary to human perception if not next to impossibility? Why on the first blow was he not hit when according to him it was so sudden? Why during the duel was he not hit with a single blow by the bolo of the victim? His injuries as per testimony of Dr. Ray Magayanes and as reflected in the medical certificate were all linear abrasion and hematoma and which according to the doctor were not caused by the bolo; whereas, the victim suffered 11 injuries and most of which were hacking (sic) wounds."[6] The settled rule is that whether or not the accused acted in self-defense, complete or incomplete, is a factual issue. And the legal aphorism is that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case.[7] We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings and its conclusion.
	GR No. 134766 2004-01-16	PEOPLE v. ELPEDIO TORRES Y CAÑETE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Although the crime was committed before the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect, the same should be applied retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant.[22] Hence, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should not be appreciated against him.
	GR No. 140618 2003-12-10	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO SARA CARPIO MORALES, J.
A Sinumpaang Salaysay or a sworn statement is merely a short narrative subscribed to by the complainant in question and answer form. Thus, it is only to be expected that it is not as exhaustive as one's testimony in open court. The contradictions, if any, may be explained by the fact that an affidavit can not possibly disclose the details in their entirety, and may inaccurately describe, without deponent detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. Being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and sometimes from the want of suggestions and inquiries. It has thus been held that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford her a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her.[69] As for the other alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they refer to minor and collateral matters, not to an essential element of the crime, [70] and do not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim. Moreover, minor contradictions among several witnesses of a particular incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related factors. [71] In fact, they bolster rather than weaken their credibility as they erase any suspicion that their testimonies have been rehearsed.[72] What is important is that both Felipe and Benjamin were consistent in positively identifying appellant as the person who shot their father.
	GR No. 141527 2003-09-04	PEOPLE v. RANDY BOCALAN Y GATDULA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The imposable penalty for attempted robbery with homicide in Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed deserves a higher penalty under the provisions of the Code. In this case, the appellant and his cohorts killed the victim with abuse of superior strength. They relied not only on their superiority in number but also on their weapons when they killed the victim. Hence, they committed murder.[26] However, for abuse of superior strength to be aggravating or qualifying, the same must be alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[27] Abuse of superior strength was not thus alleged in the Information. Although the crime was committed before the effectivity of the said Rule, the same should be applied retroactively as it will be favorable to the appellant.[28] Hence, the appellant is guilty only of attempted robbery with homicide.
	GR No. 132218 2003-07-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE NAVARRO PER CURIAM
As to the damages awarded, however, we find that some modifications need to be made. Jurisprudence has held that in cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 should be awarded to the heirs of the victim, together with P50,000.00 in moral damages.[49] Temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded if the prosecution failed, as in this case, to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to prove actual damages incurred by the heirs of the victim.[50]
	GR No. 121828 2003-06-27	PEOPLE v. EDMAR AGUILOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court correctly directed the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim Joselita Capa the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in accord with current jurisprudence.[44] The said heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000, also conformably to current jurisprudence.[45] In addition, the heirs are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[46]
	GR No. 122109 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO AZCUNA, J.
We also re-compute the loss of earning capacity using the formula provided in People v. Garcia, et al.[52] as follows: Age of Victim = 46 years old Life Expectancy = 2/3 (80 - age of victim at the time of his death) = 22.67 Gross Annual Income = P48,000 Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income = P24,000 Loss of Earning = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Capacity Income - Living Expenses) = 22.67 x P24,000 = P544,080 In line with current jurisprudence, we also award moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 and P25,000 respectively.[53] The award by the trial court of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death is affirmed.
	GR No. 126113 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO GUIHAMA Y BARANDA AZCUNA, J.
We also award damages for loss of earning capacity using the formula laid out in People v. Garcia, et al., as follows:[41]
	GR No. 125305 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR CALLEJO, SR., J.
a I don't think so, sir. q It may have been also inflicted totally with a sharp instrument? a Yes, sir. q Immediately preceding the alleged shooting?[54] ... q You also said that the assailant here would have been far, would (7) meters considered far to you? a Yes, sir. q Since this patient has no gun powder [sic] burst we could not determine how far the victim from the assailant? a No, sir.[55] Besides, the absence of gunpowder at or near the entrance of the wound will not preclude near fire because other factors might have intervened.[56]
	GR Nos. 131926 & 138991 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The crimes committed by the appellant were aggravated by dwelling,[84] the victims having been kidnapped in their house; by the use of motor vehicle,[85] the victims having been transported by the appellant from their house with the use of George's car; and by a band, the crime having been committed by the appellant and three co-conspirators.[86] However, the Court cannot consider these aggravating circumstances in determining the proper penalties for the said crimes, because the same were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[87] Although the said rules took effect after the commission of the crimes by the appellant, the same is favorable to the appellant; hence, should be applied retroactively.[88]
	GR No. 95901 2003-06-16	PEOPLE v. CRISTITO SIBONGA CALLEJO, SR., J.
With respect to the other accused, namely, Bodwin Veranio, Manuel Sibonga, Antonio Sibonga, Eufrecino Sibonga, Cristito Sibonga, Macario Casipong and Cenon Bulagao, the Court finds their denial and alibi unconvincing and undeserving of belief. In the first place eyewitness Gaudioso Isogan (sic) positively and clearly declared that he saw said accused participate in stabbing Gaudioso Kostanilla and throwing the latter's body to the precipice. That Gaudioso Isogan was present and an eyewitness when Gaudioso Kostanilla was killed is not disputed. ...[22] Case law has it that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the trial court with their testimonies unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case.[23] The Court has reviewed the records of this case and finds no basis for overruling the trial court's finding that the accused and the appellants stabbed the victim, and its conclusion that the accused and the appellants were criminally liable for the death of the victim as principals by direct participation.

PEOPLE v. RICARDO GARCIA