Lawyerly

GR No. 184704

2009-06-30

VELASCO JR., J.

COURT: Q: Meaning to say that you not only admit that you killed her but you also raped her? A: Yes, Your Honor.[17] Bascugin's confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience.[18] Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the following provisions of the Rules of Court:SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.--An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. [Rule 129]

GR NO. 137182

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG

PER CURIAM

As already stated, the trial court ordered the appellants to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaña and Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and P50,000, respectively. However, to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.[79] There is no evidence adduced before the trial court as to actual damages suffered by either Alexander or Americo. Hence, we are constrained to delete the award. This notwithstanding, under Article 2221[80] of the New Civil Code, nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated by the defendant, may be vindicated by him. Conformably, the Court rules that both Alexander and Americo shall be awarded P50,000 each as nominal damages.[81]

GR No. 134762

2002-07-23

PEOPLE v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ

QUISUMBING, J.

injured party.[50] Our review of the entire record fails to disclose such credible and satisfactory evidence. Mrs. Bates admitted she did not keep any of the receipts.[51] The award of actual damages to her must, therefore, be deleted. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72 in Criminal Case No. 18339-MN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant ROMEO FERNANDEZ alias "BONG DAGIS" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and is

GR No. 132028

2002-04-19

PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO ENFECTANA

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellants would want us to believe that it was the victim, Leo Boco, who initiated the attacks, first against Erwin Enfectana and then against Eusebio Enfectana, and that notwithstanding the fact that said Erwin and Eusebio were both caught unaware and unarmed by the sudden attacks of Leo Boco, they managed to evade him and escape unscathed. This is highly suspect and in our view, quite incredible. Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible.[22] It is very unlikely that Leo Boco, if the version of the appellants were true, would fail to land even a single hit upon the body of either appellants. Yet neither Erwin nor Eusebio Enfectana showed such injury. The version of the appellants would not explain why co-accused Efren Enfectana suddenly disappeared after the incident. If it was true that they were innocent, then there is no reason for Efren Enfectana to flee and hide. Flight is an indication of guilt[23] and lends credence to the version of the prosecution in this case.

GR Nos. 131736-37

2002-03-11

PEOPLE v. JOEY MANLANSING Y AMBROSIO

QUISUMBING, J.

A final word on damages. The trial court awarded the surviving heirs of the victims P250,000 by way of funeral and other expenses and as actual damages. In these cases, the prosecution failed to present any receipts to substantiate their claims for expenses allegedly incurred. To be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.[61] However, as the heirs of the victims did actually incur funeral expenses, we are justified in awarding P10,000 not for purposes of indemnification, but by way of temperate damages, in each case.[62]

GR No. 132373

2001-10-23

PEOPLE v. VS.TIRSO ARCAY

QUISUMBING, J.

In Criminal Case No. 8080, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Leonito Doliente P25,000 as funeral expenses and P50,000 as death indemnity. The award of P25,000 as actual damages, however, should be deleted, for lack of receipts as supporting evidence. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with competent proof.[30] However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses, P10,000 by way of nominal damages ought to be awarded.[31] In addition, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 and P10,000 as exemplary damages should also be granted to the heirs of the victim,[32] together with attorney's fees of P10,000 and the costs.

GR No. 123137

2001-10-17

PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

QUISUMBING, J.

A final word on the damages. In addition to the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, the trial court awarded P30,000 in actual damages, "representing a reasonable amount for the embalming, vigil, wake and burial expenses," and P30,000 as attorney's fees. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof, and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[73] No such evidence was offered. The award of actual damages must, therefore, be deleted. However, temperate damages may be awarded since the family of the victim has demonstrably spent for the wake, funeral and burial arrangements. The amount of P20,000 should suffice as temperate damages. In addition, we find an award of exemplary damages in order, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[74] The killing was attended by the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. Moreover, the public good demands that detained prisoners should not abuse their status as "trustees." Had the police been unsuccessful in their pursuit of appellants, the latter would have used the BBRC as shelter and as an alibi that they could not have committed the crime since they were then in detention. Thus, we find an award of P10,000 as exemplary damages in order. Accordingly, the award of attorney's fees is sustained.[75]

GR No. 129782

2001-06-29

PEOPLE v. BALWINDER SINGH

BUENA, J.

In Criminal Case No. 8683 for murder, the following amount of actual damages were duly proven - P16,500.00 funeral expenses[39] and air ticket/freight of the cadaver - $600.27.[40] The amount of P400.00 for hospitalization expenses should be deleted for not being supported by evidence. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 moral damages are affirmed. The award of P500,000.00 as attorneys' fees[41] and P5,760,000 as compensation for loss of earning capacity, are likewise deleted for lack of basis. Awards for loss of earning capacity partake of damages which must be proven not only by credible and satisfactory evidence, but also by unbiased proof.[42] The testimony of Balwinder Singh Gill, first cousin of the deceased, on the alleged income of the deceased while in the Philippines, is not enough. The best evidence to substantiate income earned by foreigners while in the Philippines is the payment of taxes with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Absent such proof, bare allegation is insufficient. Nevertheless, considering that the definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, and the fact of loss has been established, appellants shall pay the heirs of Surinder Singh temperate damages[43] in the amount of P200,000.00.

GR No. 144113

2001-06-28

EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, it is noteworthy that Marino Atienza gave his sworn statement pointing to petitioner as the assailant just two days after the shooting in contrast to defense witness Patricio Lopez who took more than three years before telling his friend Jun Roxas what he knew about the incident ¾ that it was another person whom he saw leaving the scene of the crime carrying a firearm. Such unexplained delay casts grave doubts on the credibility of his testimony.[29]

GR No. 137045

2001-04-16

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO TUMAYAO

MENDOZA, J.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring without risk to the aggressor the commission of the crime.[51] To prove the presence of treachery, the following must be established: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] Contrary to accused-appellants' contention, the evidence in the record shows that they employed treachery in killing Romulo Cañete, qualifying the killing as murder.

GR No. 138975

2001-01-29

PEOPLE v. FELIX MADERAS

QUISUMBING, J.

Among the conditions for appellant's bail was that he would at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court.[12] Under the terms of said bail bond, appellant was in constructive custody. An accused who escapes from actual custody and one who flees from constructive custody are both subject to Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,[13] in relation to Section 1, Rule 125,[14] and the Court may motu proprio or on appellee's motion dismiss the appeal for abandonment. Appellant has violated the terms of his constructive custody while his appeal was pending before this Court and lost his standing in court. Unless he surrenders he has waived his right to seek relief from this court.[15] Moreover, appellant's disappearance shortly after the appellate court had modified his conviction from homicide to murder, thereby necessitating the issuance of an alias warrant for his arrest, is a strong indication of guilt. As repeatedly observed, flight is an indication of guilt.[16] On this basis, there is now sufficient reason to declare that the instant appeal must be struck down.

	GR No. 184704 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. LEODEGARIO BASCUGIN Y AGQUIZ VELASCO JR., J.
COURT: Q: Meaning to say that you not only admit that you killed her but you also raped her? A: Yes, Your Honor.[17] Bascugin's confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience.[18] Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the following provisions of the Rules of Court:SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.--An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. [Rule 129]
	GR NO. 137182 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG PER CURIAM
As already stated, the trial court ordered the appellants to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaña and Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and P50,000, respectively. However, to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.[79] There is no evidence adduced before the trial court as to actual damages suffered by either Alexander or Americo. Hence, we are constrained to delete the award. This notwithstanding, under Article 2221[80] of the New Civil Code, nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated by the defendant, may be vindicated by him. Conformably, the Court rules that both Alexander and Americo shall be awarded P50,000 each as nominal damages.[81]
	GR No. 134762 2002-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ QUISUMBING, J.
injured party.[50] Our review of the entire record fails to disclose such credible and satisfactory evidence. Mrs. Bates admitted she did not keep any of the receipts.[51] The award of actual damages to her must, therefore, be deleted. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72 in Criminal Case No. 18339-MN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant ROMEO FERNANDEZ alias "BONG DAGIS" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and is
	GR No. 132028 2002-04-19	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO ENFECTANA QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants would want us to believe that it was the victim, Leo Boco, who initiated the attacks, first against Erwin Enfectana and then against Eusebio Enfectana, and that notwithstanding the fact that said Erwin and Eusebio were both caught unaware and unarmed by the sudden attacks of Leo Boco, they managed to evade him and escape unscathed. This is highly suspect and in our view, quite incredible. Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible.[22] It is very unlikely that Leo Boco, if the version of the appellants were true, would fail to land even a single hit upon the body of either appellants. Yet neither Erwin nor Eusebio Enfectana showed such injury. The version of the appellants would not explain why co-accused Efren Enfectana suddenly disappeared after the incident. If it was true that they were innocent, then there is no reason for Efren Enfectana to flee and hide. Flight is an indication of guilt[23] and lends credence to the version of the prosecution in this case.
	GR Nos. 131736-37 2002-03-11	PEOPLE v. JOEY MANLANSING Y AMBROSIO QUISUMBING, J.
A final word on damages. The trial court awarded the surviving heirs of the victims P250,000 by way of funeral and other expenses and as actual damages. In these cases, the prosecution failed to present any receipts to substantiate their claims for expenses allegedly incurred. To be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.[61] However, as the heirs of the victims did actually incur funeral expenses, we are justified in awarding P10,000 not for purposes of indemnification, but by way of temperate damages, in each case.[62]
	GR No. 132373 2001-10-23	PEOPLE v. VS.TIRSO ARCAY QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 8080, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Leonito Doliente P25,000 as funeral expenses and P50,000 as death indemnity. The award of P25,000 as actual damages, however, should be deleted, for lack of receipts as supporting evidence. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with competent proof.[30] However, as the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses, P10,000 by way of nominal damages ought to be awarded.[31] In addition, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 and P10,000 as exemplary damages should also be granted to the heirs of the victim,[32] together with attorney's fees of P10,000 and the costs.
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
A final word on the damages. In addition to the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, the trial court awarded P30,000 in actual damages, "representing a reasonable amount for the embalming, vigil, wake and burial expenses," and P30,000 as attorney's fees. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof, and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[73] No such evidence was offered. The award of actual damages must, therefore, be deleted. However, temperate damages may be awarded since the family of the victim has demonstrably spent for the wake, funeral and burial arrangements. The amount of P20,000 should suffice as temperate damages. In addition, we find an award of exemplary damages in order, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[74] The killing was attended by the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. Moreover, the public good demands that detained prisoners should not abuse their status as "trustees." Had the police been unsuccessful in their pursuit of appellants, the latter would have used the BBRC as shelter and as an alibi that they could not have committed the crime since they were then in detention. Thus, we find an award of P10,000 as exemplary damages in order. Accordingly, the award of attorney's fees is sustained.[75]
	GR No. 129782 2001-06-29	PEOPLE v. BALWINDER SINGH BUENA, J.
In Criminal Case No. 8683 for murder, the following amount of actual damages were duly proven - P16,500.00 funeral expenses[39] and air ticket/freight of the cadaver - $600.27.[40] The amount of P400.00 for hospitalization expenses should be deleted for not being supported by evidence. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 moral damages are affirmed. The award of P500,000.00 as attorneys' fees[41] and P5,760,000 as compensation for loss of earning capacity, are likewise deleted for lack of basis. Awards for loss of earning capacity partake of damages which must be proven not only by credible and satisfactory evidence, but also by unbiased proof.[42] The testimony of Balwinder Singh Gill, first cousin of the deceased, on the alleged income of the deceased while in the Philippines, is not enough. The best evidence to substantiate income earned by foreigners while in the Philippines is the payment of taxes with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Absent such proof, bare allegation is insufficient. Nevertheless, considering that the definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, and the fact of loss has been established, appellants shall pay the heirs of Surinder Singh temperate damages[43] in the amount of P200,000.00.
	GR No. 144113 2001-06-28	EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that Marino Atienza gave his sworn statement pointing to petitioner as the assailant just two days after the shooting in contrast to defense witness Patricio Lopez who took more than three years before telling his friend Jun Roxas what he knew about the incident ¾ that it was another person whom he saw leaving the scene of the crime carrying a firearm. Such unexplained delay casts grave doubts on the credibility of his testimony.[29]
	GR No. 137045 2001-04-16	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO TUMAYAO MENDOZA, J.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring without risk to the aggressor the commission of the crime.[51] To prove the presence of treachery, the following must be established: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[52] Contrary to accused-appellants' contention, the evidence in the record shows that they employed treachery in killing Romulo Cañete, qualifying the killing as murder.
	GR No. 138975 2001-01-29	PEOPLE v. FELIX MADERAS QUISUMBING, J.
Among the conditions for appellant's bail was that he would at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court.[12] Under the terms of said bail bond, appellant was in constructive custody. An accused who escapes from actual custody and one who flees from constructive custody are both subject to Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,[13] in relation to Section 1, Rule 125,[14] and the Court may motu proprio or on appellee's motion dismiss the appeal for abandonment. Appellant has violated the terms of his constructive custody while his appeal was pending before this Court and lost his standing in court. Unless he surrenders he has waived his right to seek relief from this court.[15] Moreover, appellant's disappearance shortly after the appellate court had modified his conviction from homicide to murder, thereby necessitating the issuance of an alias warrant for his arrest, is a strong indication of guilt. As repeatedly observed, flight is an indication of guilt.[16] On this basis, there is now sufficient reason to declare that the instant appeal must be struck down.

PEOPLE v. RAMIL SAMOLDE Y TAMBUNTING