Lawyerly

GR Nos. 120744-46

2012-06-25

SALVADOR YAPYUCO Y ENRIQUEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

PERALTA, J.

But whether or not the passengers of the subject jeepney were NPA members and whether or not they were at the time armed, are immaterial in the present inquiry inasmuch as they do not stand as accused in the prosecution at hand. Besides, even assuming that they were as the accused believed them to be, the actuations of these responding law enforcers must inevitably be ranged against reasonable expectations that arise in the legitimate course of performance of policing duties. The rules of engagement, of which every law enforcer must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he must always exercise the highest caution, do not require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his call. Pursuit without danger should be his next move, and not vengeance for personal feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more than the lawful apprehension of suspects, since the completion of the process pertains to other government officers or agencies.[108]

GR No. 135619

2004-01-15

ADONIS ARADILLOS v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As regards the damages awarded, the Court finds that the award of P1,664.00 as reimbursement for medical expenses is in order, it being supported by evidence.[67] Likewise, the victim having suffered actual injuries, she is entitled to moral damages.[68] The award of P5,000.00 is sufficient under the circumstances.[69]

GR No. 144505

2002-08-06

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO SAN JUAN Y DELA PEÑA

PUNO, J.

Neither can we appreciate evident premeditation. The following are the elements of evident premeditation: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[21] There is a dearth of evidence with respect to these elements. In the absence of any aggravating circumstance to qualify the killing to murder, we adopt the recommendation of the Solicitor General to lower the crime to homicide.

GR No. L-146308

2002-07-18

PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ

PANGANIBAN, J.

during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment, cool thought or reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent precedes the execution of the act[51] Indispensable to proving premeditation is showing how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.[52] The following are the elements of this qualifying circumstance: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) the overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the

GR No. 132793

2002-05-07

PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. For these qualifying circumstances to be considered, they must be established as conclusively as the crime itself.[19] In the case at bar, the prosecution eyewitness simply stated that he saw the accused-appellant repeatedly stabbing the victim. He did not testify to the effect that accused-appellant deliberately or consciously adopted means or method which would ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself. So also, the prosecution's version is bereft of any evidence as to how and when the killing was planned or how much time elapsed before it was carried out. Absent proof of the attendance of the elements of treachery and evident premeditation, the crime committed is only Homicide.

GR No. 146664

2002-02-28

JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, even assuming that the victim was charging at Sgt. Edep, it would have been sufficient for petitioner to warn Sgt. Edep of the danger. Not that petitioner was not expected to pause for a moment while his colleague was in danger.[43] However, the rules of engagement do not, on the other hand, require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person accosted did not heed his call.[44] But rather than confront the victim as to his intended purpose, petitioner immediately shot the former without further thought.

GR No. 143819

2002-01-29

PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO

PANGANIBAN, J.

The prosecution was likewise able to show that there was conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony.[29] It is not necessary that there be direct proof that the co-conspirators had any prior agreement to commit the crime; it is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.[30]

GR No. 105830

2002-01-15

ELADIO C. TANGAN v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit and trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each other when the shot was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the revolver.[4] Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[5] For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[6]

GR No. 136143

2001-11-15

PEOPLE v. AGAPITO CABOTE

PUNO, J.

We find, however, that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. The following are the elements of evident premeditation: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[15] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[16] For this aggravating circumstance to be considered, it is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. In the instant case, the evidence shows that the accused revealed to Avenido his intention to kill Tero at 6:30 p.m. of November 12, 1995. He hacked Tero to death some three hours later or at about 9:30 that same evening. To our mind, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's attack on Tero was preceded by such "cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out his criminal intent" within the three-hour gap.

GR No. 123819

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The award of moral damages in murder cases is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in death.[84] It is true that moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs or to penalize the convict, but to obviate the spiritual sufferings of the heirs.[85] Considering, however, the extraordinary circumstances in the case at bar, more particularly the unusual grief and outrage suffered by her bereaved family as a result of the brutal and indecent mutilation and disposal of Elsa's body, the moral damages to be awarded to them should be more than the normal amount dictated by jurisprudence. However, the amount of P3,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court as moral damages is rather excessive. The reasonable amount is P1,000,000.00 considering the immense sorrow and shock suffered by Elsa's heirs.

GR No. 123819

2001-11-14

PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, the heirs of Elsa Santos Castillo should be indemnified for her death. In murder, the civil indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00. The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility therefor.[87]

GR No. 128046

2000-03-07

PEOPLE v. RAMON CHUA UY

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

The accusatory portion of the Information[5] in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN charges:That on or about the 11th day of September 1995 in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control white crystalline substance separately contained in five (5) sealed plastic bags all with markings with total net weight 401 grams which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a regulated drug.

GR No. 128046

2000-03-07

PEOPLE v. RAMON CHUA UY

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

The accusatory portion of the Information[5] in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN charges:That on or about the 11th day of September 1995 in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control white crystalline substance separately contained in five (5) sealed plastic bags all with markings with total net weight 401 grams which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a regulated drug.

	GR Nos. 120744-46 2012-06-25	SALVADOR YAPYUCO Y ENRIQUEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
But whether or not the passengers of the subject jeepney were NPA members and whether or not they were at the time armed, are immaterial in the present inquiry inasmuch as they do not stand as accused in the prosecution at hand. Besides, even assuming that they were as the accused believed them to be, the actuations of these responding law enforcers must inevitably be ranged against reasonable expectations that arise in the legitimate course of performance of policing duties. The rules of engagement, of which every law enforcer must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he must always exercise the highest caution, do not require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his call. Pursuit without danger should be his next move, and not vengeance for personal feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more than the lawful apprehension of suspects, since the completion of the process pertains to other government officers or agencies.[108]
	GR No. 135619 2004-01-15	ADONIS ARADILLOS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As regards the damages awarded, the Court finds that the award of P1,664.00 as reimbursement for medical expenses is in order, it being supported by evidence.[67] Likewise, the victim having suffered actual injuries, she is entitled to moral damages.[68] The award of P5,000.00 is sufficient under the circumstances.[69]
	GR No. 144505 2002-08-06	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO SAN JUAN Y DELA PEÑA PUNO, J.
Neither can we appreciate evident premeditation. The following are the elements of evident premeditation: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[21] There is a dearth of evidence with respect to these elements. In the absence of any aggravating circumstance to qualify the killing to murder, we adopt the recommendation of the Solicitor General to lower the crime to homicide.
	GR No. L-146308 2002-07-18	PEOPLE v. SIXTO PARAGAS Y DELA CRUZ PANGANIBAN, J.
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment, cool thought or reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent precedes the execution of the act[51] Indispensable to proving premeditation is showing how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.[52] The following are the elements of this qualifying circumstance: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (b) the overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the
	GR No. 132793 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. For these qualifying circumstances to be considered, they must be established as conclusively as the crime itself.[19] In the case at bar, the prosecution eyewitness simply stated that he saw the accused-appellant repeatedly stabbing the victim. He did not testify to the effect that accused-appellant deliberately or consciously adopted means or method which would ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself. So also, the prosecution's version is bereft of any evidence as to how and when the killing was planned or how much time elapsed before it was carried out. Absent proof of the attendance of the elements of treachery and evident premeditation, the crime committed is only Homicide.
	GR No. 146664 2002-02-28	JOHN ANGCACO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, even assuming that the victim was charging at Sgt. Edep, it would have been sufficient for petitioner to warn Sgt. Edep of the danger. Not that petitioner was not expected to pause for a moment while his colleague was in danger.[43] However, the rules of engagement do not, on the other hand, require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person accosted did not heed his call.[44] But rather than confront the victim as to his intended purpose, petitioner immediately shot the former without further thought.
	GR No. 143819 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO PANGANIBAN, J.
The prosecution was likewise able to show that there was conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony.[29] It is not necessary that there be direct proof that the co-conspirators had any prior agreement to commit the crime; it is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.[30]
	GR No. 105830 2002-01-15	ELADIO C. TANGAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit and trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each other when the shot was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the revolver.[4] Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[5] For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[6]
	GR No. 136143 2001-11-15	PEOPLE v. AGAPITO CABOTE PUNO, J.
We find, however, that evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. The following are the elements of evident premeditation: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[15] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[16] For this aggravating circumstance to be considered, it is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. In the instant case, the evidence shows that the accused revealed to Avenido his intention to kill Tero at 6:30 p.m. of November 12, 1995. He hacked Tero to death some three hours later or at about 9:30 that same evening. To our mind, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's attack on Tero was preceded by such "cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out his criminal intent" within the three-hour gap.
	GR No. 123819 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The award of moral damages in murder cases is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in death.[84] It is true that moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs or to penalize the convict, but to obviate the spiritual sufferings of the heirs.[85] Considering, however, the extraordinary circumstances in the case at bar, more particularly the unusual grief and outrage suffered by her bereaved family as a result of the brutal and indecent mutilation and disposal of Elsa's body, the moral damages to be awarded to them should be more than the normal amount dictated by jurisprudence. However, the amount of P3,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court as moral damages is rather excessive. The reasonable amount is P1,000,000.00 considering the immense sorrow and shock suffered by Elsa's heirs.
	GR No. 123819 2001-11-14	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the heirs of Elsa Santos Castillo should be indemnified for her death. In murder, the civil indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00. The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellant's responsibility therefor.[87]
	GR No. 128046 2000-03-07	PEOPLE v. RAMON CHUA UY DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The accusatory portion of the Information[5] in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN charges:That on or about the 11th day of September 1995 in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control white crystalline substance separately contained in five (5) sealed plastic bags all with markings with total net weight 401 grams which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a regulated drug.
	GR No. 128046 2000-03-07	PEOPLE v. RAMON CHUA UY DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The accusatory portion of the Information[5] in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN charges:That on or about the 11th day of September 1995 in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control white crystalline substance separately contained in five (5) sealed plastic bags all with markings with total net weight 401 grams which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a regulated drug.

PEOPLE v. PO3 ELEUTERIO TAN