Lawyerly

GR NO. 154502

2007-04-27

CARPIO, J.

Resayo points out that his accession to the police's invitation was an indication of his innocence. He was found by the investigators ferrying passengers in Sta. Ana, Metro Manila and willingly went with them upon their request. He insists that this gesture is proof of his non-complicity in the crime charged. This argument is without merit. Such behavior does not sufficiently rebut the eyewitness' testimony nor is it conclusive proof of his innocence. There is nothing extraordinary with this conduct of acceding to the police's invitation to go to the headquarters for questioning.[25]

GR No. 153248

2004-03-25

PEOPLE v. JESUS MORILES

QUISUMBING, J.

After considering carefully the evidence on record, we find appellant's arguments unavailing. First, nowhere in the record is there a showing that the illumination at the situs criminis was so poor at the time of the incident sufficient to raise doubt on the positive identification by the eyewitness of the appellant as the assailant. Second, appellant himself admitted that Dadis and he lived as neighbors and they knew each other since childhood.[27] Appellant's physical features, build, and movements were familiar to the witness, Dadis. Familiarity with the physical features, particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person.[28] Third, on cross-examination, appellant admitted that there was no bad blood between Dadis and him. Thus, he did not know any reason or motive why Dadis should testify falsely against him.[29] As held in previous cases, where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness appears to be unbiased against the man on the dock, his statements as to the identity of the assailant deserve full faith and credence.[30]

GR No. 146100

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[42] The qualifying circumstance of treachery did not attend the killing as the two conditions for the same are not present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[43] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[44] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[45] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.

GR No. 146687

2002-08-22

PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[31] In this case, the two elements of treachery are not present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[33] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[34] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.

GR No. 135975

2002-08-14

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ABADIES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[15] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[16] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[17] In the case at bar, Cecilio Roldan was in the comforts of his home. He was eating, drinking and thoroughly engrossed in the gaiety of the yuletide season, while engaged in light banter with his wife and a neighbor. Suddenly and without warning, he was shot from behind by

GR No. 142905

2002-03-18

PEOPLE v. RAMIL GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We now come to the nature of the crime committed. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of any person when qualified by any of the circumstances listed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[31] Among these qualifying circumstances is alevosia. 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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[32] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing in this case as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[33] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[34]

GR No. 137518

2002-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, the fact that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses differ on some minor details does not in any way affect their credibility. For persons who witness an event may perceive it from different points of reference. For this reason, they may have different accounts of how the incident took place. Indeed, we cannot expect the testimonies of witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all respects because different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. What is important is that their testimonies reinforce each other on the essential facts and that their versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.[16]

GR No. 137518

2002-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM

MENDOZA, J.

In this case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same were present, i.e., (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was in no position to defend himself and (2) the offenders consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by them.[30]

GR No. 139330

2002-02-06

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SANSAET Y SANTOJALA

PARDO, J.

The accused-appellants harped on the fact that Herminio Mondragon did not report or tell anyone what he saw and waited for a long period of time before revealing that he saw the killing of Uldarico de Castro. "We do not find anything wrong with the witnesses' failure to talk to the police immediately after the incident. It is not uncommon for witnesses to delay or vacillate in disclosing the identity of the offender after the startling occurrence for fear of reprisals. The natural reluctance of witnesses to get involved in a criminal case and to provide information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice. Absent any showing that these witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit."[13]

GR Nos. 140557-58

2001-12-05

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Given the prevailing facts of the case, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Enrique Ganan was attended by alevosia. "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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[69] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[70] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[71]

	GR NO. 154502 2007-04-27	EMMIE RESAYO Y CRUZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Resayo points out that his accession to the police's invitation was an indication of his innocence. He was found by the investigators ferrying passengers in Sta. Ana, Metro Manila and willingly went with them upon their request. He insists that this gesture is proof of his non-complicity in the crime charged. This argument is without merit. Such behavior does not sufficiently rebut the eyewitness' testimony nor is it conclusive proof of his innocence. There is nothing extraordinary with this conduct of acceding to the police's invitation to go to the headquarters for questioning.[25]
	GR No. 153248 2004-03-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS MORILES QUISUMBING, J.
After considering carefully the evidence on record, we find appellant's arguments unavailing. First, nowhere in the record is there a showing that the illumination at the situs criminis was so poor at the time of the incident sufficient to raise doubt on the positive identification by the eyewitness of the appellant as the assailant. Second, appellant himself admitted that Dadis and he lived as neighbors and they knew each other since childhood.[27] Appellant's physical features, build, and movements were familiar to the witness, Dadis. Familiarity with the physical features, particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person.[28] Third, on cross-examination, appellant admitted that there was no bad blood between Dadis and him. Thus, he did not know any reason or motive why Dadis should testify falsely against him.[29] As held in previous cases, where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness appears to be unbiased against the man on the dock, his statements as to the identity of the assailant deserve full faith and credence.[30]
	GR No. 146100 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[42] The qualifying circumstance of treachery did not attend the killing as the two conditions for the same are not present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[43] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[44] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[45] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.
	GR No. 146687 2002-08-22	PEOPLE v. BONNIE R. RABANAL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[31] In this case, the two elements of treachery are not present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[32] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[33] For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.[34] Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, its perpetration with treachery cannot merely be supposed.
	GR No. 135975 2002-08-14	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO ABADIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[15] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[16] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.[17] In the case at bar, Cecilio Roldan was in the comforts of his home. He was eating, drinking and thoroughly engrossed in the gaiety of the yuletide season, while engaged in light banter with his wife and a neighbor. Suddenly and without warning, he was shot from behind by
	GR No. 142905 2002-03-18	PEOPLE v. RAMIL GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We now come to the nature of the crime committed. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of any person when qualified by any of the circumstances listed under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[31] Among these qualifying circumstances is alevosia. 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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[32] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing in this case as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[33] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[34]
	GR No. 137518 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, the fact that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses differ on some minor details does not in any way affect their credibility. For persons who witness an event may perceive it from different points of reference. For this reason, they may have different accounts of how the incident took place. Indeed, we cannot expect the testimonies of witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all respects because different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. What is important is that their testimonies reinforce each other on the essential facts and that their versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.[16]
	GR No. 137518 2002-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDITHO SUYUM MENDOZA, J.
In this case, the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same were present, i.e., (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was in no position to defend himself and (2) the offenders consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by them.[30]
	GR No. 139330 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SANSAET Y SANTOJALA PARDO, J.
The accused-appellants harped on the fact that Herminio Mondragon did not report or tell anyone what he saw and waited for a long period of time before revealing that he saw the killing of Uldarico de Castro. "We do not find anything wrong with the witnesses' failure to talk to the police immediately after the incident. It is not uncommon for witnesses to delay or vacillate in disclosing the identity of the offender after the startling occurrence for fear of reprisals. The natural reluctance of witnesses to get involved in a criminal case and to provide information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice. Absent any showing that these witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit."[13]
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Given the prevailing facts of the case, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Enrique Ganan was attended by alevosia. "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 specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[69] The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[70] The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."[71]

PEOPLE v. ROMEO GARCIA