Lawyerly

GR Nos. 170339

2010-03-09

CORONA, J.

Thus, on June 4, 1998, petitioner and de Jesus were indicted before the Sandiganbayan in seven separate Informations[3] for seven counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019.[4]

GR Nos. 170339

2010-03-09

ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

Insofar as the purchase of the Toyota Land Cruiser[11] is concerned, the Sandiganbayan found that the personal canvass was effected solely by petitioner, without the participation of the municipal accountant and petitioner's co-accused de Jesus, the municipal treasurer. Worse, there was no showing that that the award was decided by the Committee on Awards. Only an abstract of canvass supported the award, signed by petitioner and de Jesus, without the required signatures of the municipal accountant and budget officer.

GR No. 188353

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL

VELASCO JR., J.

The CA's modified decision granted exemplary damages of PhP 25,000 following People v. Galigao,[20] and reduced moral damages to PhP 50,000 in conformity with People v. Samson.[21] Thus, the instant appeal is before us.

GR No. 173242

2008-09-17

PEOPLE v. ESPERIDION BALAIS

QUISUMBING, J.

The award of exemplary damages[38] is also warranted because of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime. This is in accordance with our ruling in People v. Catubig[39] where we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[40]

GR No. 137598

2003-11-28

PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Anent the award for exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In People vs. Catubig,[63] we held that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[64]

GR No. 144331

2003-08-19

PEOPLE v. CRISTITO LATASA

PER CURIAM

As to the civil liability, the award of P50,000.00 in civil indemnity is proper and in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is also warranted but the amount of P200,000.00 must be reduced. The current case law is that in homicide or murder cases, moral damages should now be fixed at P50,000.00 to be automatically awarded to the family of the victim.[26] It must be stressed however that the purpose of the award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.[27]

GR No. 137042

2003-06-17

PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger to his person as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[17] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack by an aggressor or an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who does not give any slightest provocation, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.[18]

GR No. 137042

2003-06-17

PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed. Considering the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the amount of P25,000.00 is further awarded to the heirs of the victim as exemplary damages. In People v Catubig,[27] we ruled that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[28] As regards the award of moral damages, the amount of P20,000.00 should be increased to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29]

GR Nos. 146521-22

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. NARDITO ALEMANIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.[14] While there may, indeed, be inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, they only pertain to collateral or minor incidents of the case and they do not affect the real issue, which is, that accused-appellant raped her two daughters. In reconstructing the events

GR No. 138782

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. JERRY VILLEGAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

circumstance in the commission of the crime.[27] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna, Branch 34, in Criminal Case No. 5305-97-C, finding accused-appellant Jerry Villegas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of

GR No. 138647

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. MARLON BULFANGO Y PEÑAFIEL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"fn">[20] and People v. Catubig,[21] exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is proper in view of the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Criminal Case No. 97-1240, finding accused-appellant Marlon Bulfango y Peñafiel alias Juddie, alias Freddie Bulfango y Peñafiel, alias Marlon Navarro, guilty beyond

GR No. 140639

2002-09-27

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH BARTOLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

wake, and burial of the victim.[35] Accused-appellant should also be ordered to pay exemplary damages in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Samson,[36] citing People v. Catubig,[37] the Court ruled that

GR No. 145712

2002-09-24

PEOPLE v. VICTOR HATE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 98-4583, convicting accused-appellant Victor Hate of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion

GR No. 137273

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[28] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 49, in Criminal Case No. 94-16753, finding accused-appellant Rosendo Ernosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to

GR No. 141237

2002-09-17

PEOPLE v. JOSE NASAYAO Y BORROMEO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

damages in the amount of P25,000.00. In People v. Catubig,[29] we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. T-3162, finding accused-appellant Jose Nasayao y Borromeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing on him the penalty

GR No. 128593

2002-08-14

PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA MANALAD

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. As this opportunity is denied the appellate court, the lower court's findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on this Court absent a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts or substance of value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[11] In the case at bar, the trial court found that Orbino was categorical in his identification of accused-appellant as the person who stabbed the victim, Herman Miclat, Jr. It even noted that Orbino's identification was accurate as he was only fourteen to fifteen meters away and

GR No. 140426

2002-07-30

PEOPLE v. EDDIE ANDARME

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

9:30 in the morning. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the accused as the assailant should be given full faith and credit.[4] Accused-appellant cannot give any reason why Arturo would testify falsely against him. It would be against the natural order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely testify against accused-appellant.[5] When there is no evidence to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by an improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and that the witness' testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Between appellant's denial and the

	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Thus, on June 4, 1998, petitioner and de Jesus were indicted before the Sandiganbayan in seven separate Informations[3] for seven counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) 3019.[4]
	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Insofar as the purchase of the Toyota Land Cruiser[11] is concerned, the Sandiganbayan found that the personal canvass was effected solely by petitioner, without the participation of the municipal accountant and petitioner's co-accused de Jesus, the municipal treasurer. Worse, there was no showing that that the award was decided by the Committee on Awards. Only an abstract of canvass supported the award, signed by petitioner and de Jesus, without the required signatures of the municipal accountant and budget officer.
	GR No. 188353 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL VELASCO JR., J.
The CA's modified decision granted exemplary damages of PhP 25,000 following People v. Galigao,[20] and reduced moral damages to PhP 50,000 in conformity with People v. Samson.[21] Thus, the instant appeal is before us.
	GR No. 173242 2008-09-17	PEOPLE v. ESPERIDION BALAIS QUISUMBING, J.
The award of exemplary damages[38] is also warranted because of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime. This is in accordance with our ruling in People v. Catubig[39] where we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[40]
	GR No. 137598 2003-11-28	PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent the award for exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In People vs. Catubig,[63] we held that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[64]
	GR No. 144331 2003-08-19	PEOPLE v. CRISTITO LATASA PER CURIAM
As to the civil liability, the award of P50,000.00 in civil indemnity is proper and in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is also warranted but the amount of P200,000.00 must be reduced. The current case law is that in homicide or murder cases, moral damages should now be fixed at P50,000.00 to be automatically awarded to the family of the victim.[26] It must be stressed however that the purpose of the award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.[27]
	GR No. 137042 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the danger to his person as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[17] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack by an aggressor or an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who does not give any slightest provocation, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.[18]
	GR No. 137042 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MUSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed. Considering the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the amount of P25,000.00 is further awarded to the heirs of the victim as exemplary damages. In People v Catubig,[27] we ruled that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[28] As regards the award of moral damages, the amount of P20,000.00 should be increased to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[29]
	GR Nos. 146521-22 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. NARDITO ALEMANIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.[14] While there may, indeed, be inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, they only pertain to collateral or minor incidents of the case and they do not affect the real issue, which is, that accused-appellant raped her two daughters. In reconstructing the events
	GR No. 138782 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. JERRY VILLEGAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
circumstance in the commission of the crime.[27] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna, Branch 34, in Criminal Case No. 5305-97-C, finding accused-appellant Jerry Villegas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
	GR No. 138647 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. MARLON BULFANGO Y PEÑAFIEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[20] and People v. Catubig,[21] exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is proper in view of the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in Criminal Case No. 97-1240, finding accused-appellant Marlon Bulfango y Peñafiel alias Juddie, alias Freddie Bulfango y Peñafiel, alias Marlon Navarro, guilty beyond
	GR No. 140639 2002-09-27	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH BARTOLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
wake, and burial of the victim.[35] Accused-appellant should also be ordered to pay exemplary damages in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In People v. Samson,[36] citing People v. Catubig,[37] the Court ruled that
	GR No. 145712 2002-09-24	PEOPLE v. VICTOR HATE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 98-4583, convicting accused-appellant Victor Hate of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
	GR No. 137273 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[28] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 49, in Criminal Case No. 94-16753, finding accused-appellant Rosendo Ernosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to
	GR No. 141237 2002-09-17	PEOPLE v. JOSE NASAYAO Y BORROMEO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
damages in the amount of P25,000.00. In People v. Catubig,[29] we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[30] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 15, in Criminal Case No. T-3162, finding accused-appellant Jose Nasayao y Borromeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing on him the penalty
	GR No. 128593 2002-08-14	PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA MANALAD YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. As this opportunity is denied the appellate court, the lower court's findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on this Court absent a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts or substance of value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[11] In the case at bar, the trial court found that Orbino was categorical in his identification of accused-appellant as the person who stabbed the victim, Herman Miclat, Jr. It even noted that Orbino's identification was accurate as he was only fourteen to fifteen meters away and
	GR No. 140426 2002-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDDIE ANDARME YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
9:30 in the morning. Where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased against the accused, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the accused as the assailant should be given full faith and credit.[4] Accused-appellant cannot give any reason why Arturo would testify falsely against him. It would be against the natural order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely testify against accused-appellant.[5] When there is no evidence to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by an improper motive, the presumption is that such motive was absent, and that the witness' testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Between appellant's denial and the

PEOPLE v. RENATO SAMSON Y COREA