Lawyerly

GR No. 182548

2008-09-30

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We agree with the trial court. While we are aware of doctrinal pronouncements of this Court that the manner of attack must be proven in order to appreciate treachery,[28] such is only applicable when it is the suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack which were considered as the means used by the assailant to insure its execution, without risk to assailant arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In the case at bar, the means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing of the victims so as to afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves was the act of tying the hands of the victims. Teresita saw the accused-appellants hog-tie the victims and take them away with them. Later that night, Dionisio Palmero saw the victims, still hog-tied, walking with the accused-appellants. The following day, the victims were found dead, still hog-tied. Thus, no matter how the stab and hack wounds had been inflicted on the victims in the case at bar, we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Jose, Ronilo and Reymundo Cuizon had no opportunity to defend themselves because the accused-appellants had earlier tied their hands. The fact that there were twelve persons who took and killed the Cuizons further assured the attainment of accused-appellants' plans without risk to themselves.

GR No. 181632

2008-09-25

PEOPLE v. JESSIE BALLESTA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is settled that treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. This Court has also previously held that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Where no particulars are shown as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the deceased began and developed, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[31]

GR NO. 163705

2007-07-30

NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

The appellate court is correct in ruling out conspiracy. The existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed. The elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[51] Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.[52] Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[53] It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. All taken together, however, the evidence therefor must be reasonably strong enough to show a community of criminal design.[54]

GR NO. 143404

2005-06-08

PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit.[32]

GR No. 144331

2003-08-19

PEOPLE v. CRISTITO LATASA

PER CURIAM

The court a quo correctly held that the killing was qualified by treachery as two (2) elements concurred: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[25] Nenen Calamba was totally unaware of accused-appellant's presence inside his house and was shot from behind. Obviously, accused-appellant purposely hid behind the cabinet in order to ensure his safety and give the victim no chance to evade his assault much less retaliate. Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was expressly alleged in the Information, the conviction for murder is proper.

GR No. L-146308

2002-07-18

PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony.[61] Well-settled is the rule that the existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed.[62] Thus, like any other element of the

GR No. 132793

2002-05-07

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

After a careful and meticulous review of the evidence on record, we find that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Avelino Nadera. He testified in a candid, direct and straight-forward manner and remained consistent even under cross-examination. Indeed, his testimony is worthy of belief, considering that he was not shown to have been impelled by improper motive to testify against accused-appellant.[16]

GR No. 139179

2002-04-03

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO TOLENTINO Y ESPERAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed.[17] Quite the contrary, the evidence for it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.[18] As this Court has repeatedly stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or conjectures.[19] Prior agreement or assent is usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action, common design and objective, actual cooperation, and concurrence of sentiments or community of interests.[20] Mere presence at the scene of the crime or even knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator.[21] Therefore, the task in every case is to determine whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof reasonably yield that inference.[22]

GR No. 146664

2002-02-28

JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against petitioner. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.[51] For treachery to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and Noel Bergante cannot be given credence. As we already stated, even the trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[53]

GR Nos. 140557-58

2001-12-05

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Seventh, the nature and number of the gunshot wounds negates accused-appellant's claim of self-defense. The victim suffered six (6) gunshot wounds on the head, shoulder, right arm, right hand, and right thigh. If accused-appellant shot the victim just to defend himself, it certainly defies reason why he had to pump several bullets on the head, shoulder, arm and thigh of the latter. What is more damning, Dr. Ludovino Lagat, the Medico Legal Officer who performed the autopsy on the victim testified that the most fatal wound located on the head, was inflicted not more than half an inch from behind,[40] or at point-blank range. It has been held in this regard that the location and presence of several wounds on the body of the victim is physical evidence that eloquently refutes accused-appellant's allegation of self-defense.[41]

GR No. 142044

2001-11-23

PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused further insists that voluntary surrender should have been appreciated in his favor. With regard to voluntary surrender, three (3) requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[41] A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[42] If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.[43] The word "spontaneous" emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.[44]

GR No. 142044

2001-11-23

PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

To be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three (3) or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors purposely took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[65] In this case, the prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of accused-appellant to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between him and the victim.

GR No. 137457

2001-11-21

PEOPLE v. ROSAURO SIA Y DICHOSO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

To be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors purposely took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[47] In this case, the prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of accused-appellants to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between them and the victim.

GR No. 133886

2001-09-05

PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Article 14, paragraph (16), of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The testimony of prosecution witness Efren Belcher, although sufficient to prove that accused-appellant did indeed kill Teodoro Coronado, is nevertheless wanting as far as proof of treachery is concerned. As we recently pointed out in People v. Antonio Samudio y Loresto, et al.[36] -

	GR No. 182548 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. CESARIO OSIANAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with the trial court. While we are aware of doctrinal pronouncements of this Court that the manner of attack must be proven in order to appreciate treachery,[28] such is only applicable when it is the suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack which were considered as the means used by the assailant to insure its execution, without risk to assailant arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In the case at bar, the means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing of the victims so as to afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves was the act of tying the hands of the victims. Teresita saw the accused-appellants hog-tie the victims and take them away with them. Later that night, Dionisio Palmero saw the victims, still hog-tied, walking with the accused-appellants. The following day, the victims were found dead, still hog-tied. Thus, no matter how the stab and hack wounds had been inflicted on the victims in the case at bar, we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Jose, Ronilo and Reymundo Cuizon had no opportunity to defend themselves because the accused-appellants had earlier tied their hands. The fact that there were twelve persons who took and killed the Cuizons further assured the attainment of accused-appellants' plans without risk to themselves.
	GR No. 181632 2008-09-25	PEOPLE v. JESSIE BALLESTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is settled that treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. This Court has also previously held that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Where no particulars are shown as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the deceased began and developed, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[31]
	GR NO. 163705 2007-07-30	NOMER OCAMPO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
The appellate court is correct in ruling out conspiracy. The existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed. The elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[51] Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.[52] Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[53] It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. All taken together, however, the evidence therefor must be reasonably strong enough to show a community of criminal design.[54]
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit.[32]
	GR No. 144331 2003-08-19	PEOPLE v. CRISTITO LATASA PER CURIAM
The court a quo correctly held that the killing was qualified by treachery as two (2) elements concurred: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[25] Nenen Calamba was totally unaware of accused-appellant's presence inside his house and was shot from behind. Obviously, accused-appellant purposely hid behind the cabinet in order to ensure his safety and give the victim no chance to evade his assault much less retaliate. Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was expressly alleged in the Information, the conviction for murder is proper.
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony.[61] Well-settled is the rule that the existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed.[62] Thus, like any other element of the
	GR No. 132793 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
After a careful and meticulous review of the evidence on record, we find that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Avelino Nadera. He testified in a candid, direct and straight-forward manner and remained consistent even under cross-examination. Indeed, his testimony is worthy of belief, considering that he was not shown to have been impelled by improper motive to testify against accused-appellant.[16]
	GR No. 139179 2002-04-03	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO TOLENTINO Y ESPERAT PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed.[17] Quite the contrary, the evidence for it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.[18] As this Court has repeatedly stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or conjectures.[19] Prior agreement or assent is usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action, common design and objective, actual cooperation, and concurrence of sentiments or community of interests.[20] Mere presence at the scene of the crime or even knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator.[21] Therefore, the task in every case is to determine whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof reasonably yield that inference.[22]
	GR No. 146664 2002-02-28	JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against petitioner. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.[51] For treachery to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and Noel Bergante cannot be given credence. As we already stated, even the trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[53]
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Seventh, the nature and number of the gunshot wounds negates accused-appellant's claim of self-defense. The victim suffered six (6) gunshot wounds on the head, shoulder, right arm, right hand, and right thigh. If accused-appellant shot the victim just to defend himself, it certainly defies reason why he had to pump several bullets on the head, shoulder, arm and thigh of the latter. What is more damning, Dr. Ludovino Lagat, the Medico Legal Officer who performed the autopsy on the victim testified that the most fatal wound located on the head, was inflicted not more than half an inch from behind,[40] or at point-blank range. It has been held in this regard that the location and presence of several wounds on the body of the victim is physical evidence that eloquently refutes accused-appellant's allegation of self-defense.[41]
	GR No. 142044 2001-11-23	PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused further insists that voluntary surrender should have been appreciated in his favor. With regard to voluntary surrender, three (3) requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[41] A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[42] If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.[43] The word "spontaneous" emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.[44]
	GR No. 142044 2001-11-23	PEOPLE v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS Y MABENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three (3) or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors purposely took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[65] In this case, the prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of accused-appellant to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between him and the victim.
	GR No. 137457 2001-11-21	PEOPLE v. ROSAURO SIA Y DICHOSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors purposely took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[47] In this case, the prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of accused-appellants to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between them and the victim.
	GR No. 133886 2001-09-05	PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Article 14, paragraph (16), of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The testimony of prosecution witness Efren Belcher, although sufficient to prove that accused-appellant did indeed kill Teodoro Coronado, is nevertheless wanting as far as proof of treachery is concerned. As we recently pointed out in People v. Antonio Samudio y Loresto, et al.[36] -

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO Y LORESTO