Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANDRES ORTIZ Y PEBRERO

This case has been cited 20 times or more.

	GR No. 171453 2009-06-18	PEOPLE v. MANUEL DELPINO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The trial court appreciated the presence of treachery as the accused-appellant had employed means in his execution of the crime without any risk to himself. There is treachery when the offenders commit any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order that alevosia may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be shown that: a.] the malefactor employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and b.] the means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. Its essence is the sudden, unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.[35]
	GR NO. 180923 2009-04-30	PEOPLE v. SALOMON DIONEDA Y DELA CRUZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor inaccuracies in their narration of events. Trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential discrepancies on minor details in the testimonies of witness do not impair their credibility. They could, in fact, be badges of truth for they manifest spontaneity and erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[22] As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements of the crime and do not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused as in the present case, these are not valid grounds to reverse a conviction.[23]
	GR No. 173824 2008-08-28	PETER TARAPEN Y CHONGOY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Such inconsistency will not discredit her. It is settled that certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand seldom could discredit the declarant. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries. They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court. Our case law is unequivocal in saying that the testimony of a witness prevails over an affidavit. In short, affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open-court declarations; or, more bluntly stated, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[48] The Court has consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects that would justify the reversal of a judgment of conviction.[49] In this case, when Mrs. Costales was confronted with this contradiction, she explained that she never told the police that the petitioner and the victim had a fistfight. What she said was they had a quarrel; that is, they faced each other and exchanged words.
	GR No. 169877 2008-02-14	PEOPLE v. AMADOR SEGOBRE y QUIJANO QUISUMBING, J.
Following current jurisprudence, we find the award of civil indemnity[21] in the amount of P50,000 for the death of Crescini correct and proper without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime. We also affirm the award of moral damages of P50,000 in accordance with our ruling in People v. Ortiz.[22] Exemplary damages of P25,000 is likewise warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Exemplary damages are awarded when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[23]
	GR NO. 171087 2006-07-12	PEOPLE v. FABIAN SADES Y RODEL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the alleged inconsistencies in Marilyn's testimonies, i.e., when she pointed to the right side instead of the left side of her waist to indicate the gunshot wound of her husband, we find the same minor and inconsequential. It did not in any way lessen her credibility. Time and again we have held that minor variances in the details of a witness's account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony. Indeed, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes and would fall into confused statements, and at times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity.[12] If it appears that the same witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted.[13] Marilyn's mistake in pointing to the right side showed her candidness and the fact that she did not rehearse her answers for the trial.
	GR No. 156643 2006-06-27	FRANCISCO SALVADOR B. ACEJAS III v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, C.J.
witnesses, to present cannot be dictated by the accused or even by the trial court.[69] If petitioners believed that Takao Aoyagi's testimony was important to their case, they should have presented him as their witness.[70] Finally, Acejas claims that his Comment/Objection to the prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence was not resolved by the Sandiganbayan.[71] In that Comment/Objection, he had noted the lateness in the filing of the Formal Offer of Evidence.
	GR No. 139297 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. RENATO PUNO, J.
Clearly, reference is made on what Erlinda did not mention in her sworn statement. This is not an inconsistency but merely an incompleteness of narration. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiries.[11] There is no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies during the trial.[12]
	GR No. 133737 2003-01-13	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN DIAZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, there was no showing that the witnesses were prompted by any ill-motive to point to appellant as the culprit. Where, as in this case, there is no evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[44]
	GR No. 140871 2002-08-08	PEOPLE v. RESTY SILVA PER CURIAM
Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. Considering the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the presence of two aggravating circumstances of treachery and nighttime without any mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the maximum penalty of death as prescribed under Art. 63[44] for the murder of Manuel Ceriales. The penalty of an indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) years prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum imposed by the trial court for the attempted murder of Edmundo Ceriales is likewise affirmed. Finally, in keeping with recent jurisprudence,[45] in addition to civil indemnity of P50,000.00, we hereby impose the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof for the death of the victim Manuel Ceriales.
	GR No. 132793 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The fate of accused-appellant rests on the issue of credibility. The Court has consistently held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally will not overturn the findings of the trial courts. They are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court.[15]
	GR No. 132793 2002-05-07	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO LABITAD Y MIJARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards the accused-appellant's civil liability, we sustain the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and further orders accused-appellant to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[21] The heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity of the victim, which shall be computed using the formula:[22]
	GR Nos. 144222-24 2002-04-03	PEOPLE v. RONITO BOLLER YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In addition to the civil indemnity, accused-appellants should also be held liable for moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, which needs no proof other than the fact of death of the victim.[31]
	GR No. 135693 2002-04-01	PEOPLE v. CORNELIO GELIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent accused-appellants' civil liability, the Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto and further orders accused-appellants to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages, which needs no proof other than the fact of death of the victim,[30] as well as damages for the loss of earning capacity of the victim which shall be computed using the formula:[31]
	GR No. 134379 2002-03-21	PEOPLE v. RUEL ALILIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, the trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. Civil indemnity ex delicto can be awarded without need of further proof other than the commission of the felony itself.[16] With respect to the award of actual damages, the rule in this jurisdiction is that the same cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any tangible document to support such a claim.[17] Anent the award of actual damages, the same was the subject of stipulation between the parties.[18] Hence, the award of P21,125.00 as actual damages is affirmed.[19] In addition, moral damages should be awarded to the heirs of the deceased. The conviction of accused-appellant for the crime charged is sufficient to justify the award thereof.[20] Consistent with jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages shall be P50,000.00.[21]
	GR No. 139409 2002-03-18	PEOPLE v. ELIGIO CIRON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Ortiz,[19] citing People v. Panado, et al.,[20] and People v. Cortez, et al.,[21] the Court held that the unlawful killing of a person, which may either be murder or homicide, entitles the heirs of the deceased to moral damages without need of independent proof other than the fact of death of the victim. This is so because the law presumes that the death of the victim naturally causes mental anguish, serious anxiety, and wounded feelings to his bereaved family.
	GR No. 126146 2002-03-12	PEOPLE v. JEMREICH MATIGNAS Y SAN PASCUAL PANGANIBAN, J.
WHEREFORE, the automatically-appealed Decision is MODIFIED as follows: (1) appellants are found GUILTY of murder and are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua and (2) they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim's heirs P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, another P50,000 as moral damages,[35] P198,343.85 as actual damages and P684,440 as loss of earning capacity. No pronouncement as to costs.
	GR No. 140732 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOB CORTEZANO Y PAJO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As enunciated in the above ruling of the Supreme Court, in order for a voluntary surrender to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, it must show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. This was not the main purpose of the accused when he surrendered, as a matter of fact, he denied in his defense that he had committed the crime charged. Because of such denial, his voluntary surrender cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance in his favor. There being no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances proven by the parties, the penalty to be imposed in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code is the lesser penalty of what is provided for under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[44] Lastly, the trial court's award of P30,000.00 as and for moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[45]
	GR No. 118073 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENATO ORPILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[32] The award of P30,000.00 for medical and funeral expenses cannot, however, be allowed as the prosecution failed to present receipts therefor. Nevertheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to P10,000.00 by way of temperate damages, since they were able to prove pecuniary loss, only that there was no competent proof as to the amount thereof.[33]
	GR No. 133224 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BULAN BELLOSILLO, J.
The question of inconsistency arose from the sworn statement executed by Danilo Sause before the police.[13] Inconsistencies between the testimony and the sworn statement were explained to be due to the fact that affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by others and affiants are only made to sign them.[14] Certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom discredit the declarant.[15] Sworn statements, taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of suggestion and inquiry.[16] They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.[17] In other words, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.[18]
	GR No. 140759 2002-01-24	PEOPLE v. JACINTO NARVAEZ CARPIO, J.
The general rule has always been that discrepancies between the statements of the witness in his affidavit and those he makes on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him[38] because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit taken ex parte is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate[39]. The exceptions thereto, which impair the credibility of the witness, are: (1) when the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court, or (2) when the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident that one relating the incident as an eyewitness cannot be expected to fail to mention.[40] The point of inquiry is whether the contradictions are important and substantial, and in this case we find the contradictions touching on important and substantial matters.