Lawyerly

GR NO. 131260

2006-12-06

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. RICHARD V. FUNK

CORONA, J.

Meanwhile, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals (CA),[7] petitioner sought to set aside the denial of its motion to dismiss with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary writ of injunction. The CA ordered respondent to comment on the petition[8] and the proceedings before the trial court were temporarily suspended.

GR No. 133888

2001-03-01

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES

PER CURIAM

As against the positive and categorical testimony of Lorielyn, accused-appellant can only proffer the defense of alibi. However, in order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution with the defense of alibi, he must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[54] In the instant case, the testimonies for the defense sought to establish that accused-appellant was 400 to 500 meters, or 15 minutes, away from the scene of the crime. This hardly qualifies as proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Accused-appellant's defense of alibi must, therefore, necessarily fail.

GR Nos. 132696-97

2001-02-12

PEOPLE v. RAMON NAVARRO

KAPUNAN, J.

A No, sir, because there were rumors that he was a killer.[23] The inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant refer merely to inconsequential details and not to the crux of the case - that Regaspi actually saw accused-appellant gun down Calizar. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony."[24]

GR No. 124639

2001-02-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DE VILLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Accused-appellant also raises the defense of alibi, averring that at the time of the incident, he was in his hometown of San Luis, Batangas attending the feast day of San Isidro Labrador, Patron Saint of the Farmers. It should be emphasized that the victim positively and categorically testified that she was raped by accused-appellant. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in criminal cases and it should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. Moreover, in order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[11] The distance between Pasig City and Batangas can be traversed within a few hours; hence, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be in Pasig City at any time within the third week of April 1994, during which the rape was committed.

GR No. 129532

2000-10-05

PEOPLE v. VICENTE HILOT

QUISUMBING, J.

This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense[28] and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[29] Moreover, for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence, the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense.[30] Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points.[31] In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established.

GR Nos. 115251-52

2000-10-05

PEOPLE v. JOHN DEE Y OFIDO

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellants contend that the trial court was biased in disregarding their alibi. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[37] For alibi to prosper as a defense, one must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[38] In this case, appellants admitted their presence at the mini-cinema. Salanga averred that he was in the cinema ticket booth issuing tickets.[39] Dee testified that he was at the "jackpot section" (lakpatan) working.[40] Their employer, Robelio Aben, declared that both appellants were working at the time of the incident, "in front of the theater."[41] Ernesto Corpuz, a co-employee of appellants, also testified that when the attack on Malanum and Blaquer occurred, both appellants were working. Salanga was in front of the theater advertising the show, while Dee was managing the "tangga" table.[42] It was, therefore, not physically impossible for appellants to be at the locus criminis.

GR No. 122477

2000-06-30

PEOPLE v. EDISON ARELLANO

KAPUNAN, J.

Likewise, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[41] The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the total amount of P13,000.00 as the defense admitted that the victim's family incurred funeral expenses of P6,000.00 and medical expenses of P7,000.00.[42] Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages. However, since the defense did not contest that claim, it should be granted.

GR No. 120170

2000-05-30

PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG

PARDO, J.

The wounds sustained by the victim were located on the chest, thus indicating a frontal attack. However, eyewitness Josephine Sevillana testified that accused-appellant, armed with a knife, attacked the victim when she was unarmed and without any opportunity to defend herself. Hence, although the attack may have been frontal, the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving no opportunity for the victim to put up an adequate defense.[31] Thus, treachery attended the commission of the crime.

GR No. 119621

2000-05-12

PEOPLE v. ROMULO AVILLANA Y CATASCAN

PARDO, J.

The Court will not disturb the trial court's finding of treachery. The victim Andresito was caught by surprise and defenseless when accused-appellant made his stealthful approach from behind and lunged a knife into Andresito's chest. Clearly, treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack, although frontal, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.[16]

GR No. 130658

2000-05-04

PEOPLE v. ORLITO GADIN

PARDO, J.

In this case, accused-appellant stabbed the victim when the latter was merely drinking with his friends. The attack was sudden and unprovoked, giving the victim no opportunity to repel the attack. Although the stabbing was done frontally, the victim had no chance to offer any defense. Thus, treachery attended the commission of the crime.[19]

	GR NO. 131260 2006-12-06	SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. RICHARD V. FUNK CORONA, J.
Meanwhile, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals (CA),[7] petitioner sought to set aside the denial of its motion to dismiss with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary writ of injunction. The CA ordered respondent to comment on the petition[8] and the proceedings before the trial court were temporarily suspended.
	GR No. 133888 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO Y ROSALES PER CURIAM
As against the positive and categorical testimony of Lorielyn, accused-appellant can only proffer the defense of alibi. However, in order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution with the defense of alibi, he must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[54] In the instant case, the testimonies for the defense sought to establish that accused-appellant was 400 to 500 meters, or 15 minutes, away from the scene of the crime. This hardly qualifies as proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Accused-appellant's defense of alibi must, therefore, necessarily fail.
	GR Nos. 132696-97 2001-02-12	PEOPLE v. RAMON NAVARRO KAPUNAN, J.
A No, sir, because there were rumors that he was a killer.[23] The inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant refer merely to inconsequential details and not to the crux of the case - that Regaspi actually saw accused-appellant gun down Calizar. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony."[24]
	GR No. 124639 2001-02-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO DE VILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accused-appellant also raises the defense of alibi, averring that at the time of the incident, he was in his hometown of San Luis, Batangas attending the feast day of San Isidro Labrador, Patron Saint of the Farmers. It should be emphasized that the victim positively and categorically testified that she was raped by accused-appellant. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in criminal cases and it should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. Moreover, in order to overcome the evidence of the prosecution, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[11] The distance between Pasig City and Batangas can be traversed within a few hours; hence, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be in Pasig City at any time within the third week of April 1994, during which the rape was committed.
	GR No. 129532 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. VICENTE HILOT QUISUMBING, J.
This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense[28] and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[29] Moreover, for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence, the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense.[30] Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points.[31] In this case, the element of physical impossibility of appellant's presence that fateful night at the crime scene has not been established.
	GR Nos. 115251-52 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. JOHN DEE Y OFIDO QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants contend that the trial court was biased in disregarding their alibi. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.[37] For alibi to prosper as a defense, one must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[38] In this case, appellants admitted their presence at the mini-cinema. Salanga averred that he was in the cinema ticket booth issuing tickets.[39] Dee testified that he was at the "jackpot section" (lakpatan) working.[40] Their employer, Robelio Aben, declared that both appellants were working at the time of the incident, "in front of the theater."[41] Ernesto Corpuz, a co-employee of appellants, also testified that when the attack on Malanum and Blaquer occurred, both appellants were working. Salanga was in front of the theater advertising the show, while Dee was managing the "tangga" table.[42] It was, therefore, not physically impossible for appellants to be at the locus criminis.
	GR No. 122477 2000-06-30	PEOPLE v. EDISON ARELLANO KAPUNAN, J.
Likewise, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[41] The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the total amount of P13,000.00 as the defense admitted that the victim's family incurred funeral expenses of P6,000.00 and medical expenses of P7,000.00.[42] Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages. However, since the defense did not contest that claim, it should be granted.
	GR No. 120170 2000-05-30	PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO DIMAILIG y CARAIG PARDO, J.
The wounds sustained by the victim were located on the chest, thus indicating a frontal attack. However, eyewitness Josephine Sevillana testified that accused-appellant, armed with a knife, attacked the victim when she was unarmed and without any opportunity to defend herself. Hence, although the attack may have been frontal, the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving no opportunity for the victim to put up an adequate defense.[31] Thus, treachery attended the commission of the crime.
	GR No. 119621 2000-05-12	PEOPLE v. ROMULO AVILLANA Y CATASCAN PARDO, J.
The Court will not disturb the trial court's finding of treachery. The victim Andresito was caught by surprise and defenseless when accused-appellant made his stealthful approach from behind and lunged a knife into Andresito's chest. Clearly, treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack, although frontal, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.[16]
	GR No. 130658 2000-05-04	PEOPLE v. ORLITO GADIN PARDO, J.
In this case, accused-appellant stabbed the victim when the latter was merely drinking with his friends. The attack was sudden and unprovoked, giving the victim no opportunity to repel the attack. Although the stabbing was done frontally, the victim had no chance to offer any defense. Thus, treachery attended the commission of the crime.[19]

PEOPLE v. APOLINAR DANDO