Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. TONY ADOC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 148877 2003-08-19	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT PER CURIAM
In consonance with prevailing jurisprudence, we grant the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity for his death. The amount is awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[15] We also reduce the amount of moral damages to P50,000.00[16] in line with recent jurisprudence for the pain and sorrow wrought by Pepito's untimely demise as testified to by his widow Teodora Bagsit Sison.[17] The actual damages granted by the trial court should however be deleted. The barren testimony of the widow in the absence of receipts to prove that the family of the deceased incurred funeral and incidental expenses is not sufficient to support this claim. However, temperate damages may be awarded in place of actual damages.
	GR No. 127843 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. HERMAN D. BATO PARDO, J.
Second, treachery. The crime committed was murder because the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery exists when the accused employs means, methods and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[28] Like the crime itself, treachery must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[29]
	GR No. 119832 2000-10-12	RAYMUNDO TAN v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners also claim that the testimonies of the prosecution's alleged eyewitnesses are riddled with grave and irreconcilable contradictions and inconsistencies. They raise doubts on who really struck the fatal blow, Raymundo or Eduardo. Even assuming that witnesses Cinco, Todavia, and Concejos did not accurately describe the manner in which petitioners attacked the victim, there is no doubt in our minds that these witnesses saw petitioners actually attack the victim. Errorless testimonies cannot be expected, especially where witnesses are recounting details of a harrowing experience, but so long as the testimonies jibe on material points, minor inconsistencies will neither dilute the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity of their testimony.[13] What is material here is that the prosecution witnesses positively identified the two petitioners as the perpetrators of the offense. Moreover, since the appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court as to the existence of a conspiracy between the two petitioners, it is immaterial as to who between the two petitioners delivered the fatal blow against the victim. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and they are liable as principals, regardless of the extent and character of their participation.[14]
	GR No. 130613 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO AQUINO BELLOSILLO, J.
Q: By the way, have you signed any sworn statement in connection with this case? A: Yes, sir.[6] The attendance of treachery in the commission of the crime when alleged in the information qualifies the killing to murder. As a qualifying circumstance, treachery must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, we find that the second requisite for treachery to be present, i.e., that the accused deliberately adopted the means of execution, was not satisfactorily proved. It was not even established how the initial attack was launched. In People v. Adoc[7] we held that the failure of the prosecution to present evidence as to the manner in which the altercation started precludes a finding that the killing was qualified by treachery. Thus, in the instant case, treachery could not be properly appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. Accused-appellant is, therefore, guilty only of homicide.
	GR No. 129371 2000-10-04	PEOPLE v. ROMEO SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Tony Adoc, et. al.,[6] treachery was ruled out as having attended the commission of the crime considering that the two eyewitnesses had no knowledge as to how the fighting begun, thus:"Neither could Diomedel Diapo testify as to the cause of the fray. He came out of his house which was across the terminal only after he already heard shouts which proves that the fighting had already started when he arrived at the scene of the crime. This failure of the prosecution to present evidence as to the manner in which the altercation started precludes a finding that the killing was qualified by treachery.