legres case digest_bday case_vv

8/9/2019 Legres Case Digest_bday Case_vv

1/6

G.R. No. 94149 May 5, 1992

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION and/or

NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION (Manila), respondents.

FACTS:

On June 19, 1988, Cheng Hwa Pulp Corporation shipped 5,000 bales of bleached kraftpulp from Haulien, Taiwan on board SS Kaunlaran, which is owned and operatedtherein by National Marine Corporation. The said shipment was consigned to MayleenPaper, Inc. of Manila, which insured the shipment with American Home AssuranceCompany. The shipment which arrived in Manila on June 22, 1988 was discharged intothe custody of the Manila Port Services, Inc., for eventual delivery to the consignee-

assured. Upon delivery to Mayleen Paper, Inc., it was found that 122 bales had eitherbeen damaged or lost.

Mayleen Paper, Inc. duly demanded indemnification from National Marine Corporationfor the damages/losses but said demand was not heeded, for no justifiable reason. Asthe shipment was insured with American Home Assurance Company, Mayleen PaperInc. sought recovery from the former. Upon demand and submission of properdocumentation, American Home Assurance Company paid Mayleen Paper, Inc. for thedamages/losses suffered.

On June 6, 1989, American Home Assurance Company brought suit against NationalMarine Corporation for the recovery of the amount paid to Mayleen Paper, Inc. and 25%

of the total amount due as attorneys fees. National Marine Corporation filed a motion todismiss stating that American Home Assurance Company had no cause of action basedon Article 848 of the Code of Commerce. On the other hand, American Home AssuranceCompany countered that Article 848 does not apply as the loss or damages is due to aninherent defect of the goods, an accident of the sea, or a force majeure or thenegligence of the crew of the carrier, while claims for damages due to the negligence ofthe common carrier are governed by the Civil Code provisions on Common Carriers.

The Regional Trial Court sustained National Marine Corporations contention, thus,dismissed the complaint of American Home Assurance Company for lack of cause ofaction. The American Home Assurance Company then filed a motion for reconsiderationbut same was denied. Instead if filing an appeal from the order of the court a quo ,

American Home Assurance Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. But, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as constituting plain errors oflaw and not grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari .

ISSUE:

Whether or not the applicable rule is Article 848 of the Code of Commerce.


2/6

HELD:

No. The National Marine Corporation being a common carrier, in conducting its businessis regulated by the Civil Code primarily and suppletorily by the Code of Commerce. Forcargoes transported to the Philippines as in the case at bar, the liability of the carrier isgoverned primarily by the Civil Code and in all matters not regulated by said Code, therights and obligations of common carrier shall be governed by the Code of Commerceand by special laws (Article 1766, Civil Code). Corollary thereto, under Article 1733 ofthe Civil Code, common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons ofpublic policy are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over thegoods and for the safety of passengers transported by them according to allcircumstances of each case. Thus, under Article 1735 of the same Code, in all casesother than those mentioned in Article 1734 thereof, the common carrier will be presumedto have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it has observedthe extraordinary diligence required by law.


3/6

G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle,vs.DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER

SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, AND ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN AVIR, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven members of theSigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the MainLibrary of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by severalmasked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries thatrequired hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.Information for murder was filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity,namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, RobertMichael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo JoletteFajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle Magpantay, BenedictGuerrero, and Rodolfo Pealosa, Jr. with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,Branch 219.

The above-named members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity, wearing masks and/or otherforms of disguise, conspiring, confederating with other persons whose true names,identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained, and mutually helping oneanother, with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, and with evident premeditation, takingadvantage of superior strength, armed with baseball bats, lead pipes, and cutters, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personalviolence upon the members of Sigma Rho Fraternity.

On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the finding that RobertMichael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and WarrenZingapan were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder andwere sentenced to, among other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua . The trialcourt, however, acquitted Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, Gilbert Magpantay,George Morano, and Raymund Narag. The case against Benedict Guerrero was orderedarchived by the court until his apprehension.

Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua , the case was brought

to the Supreme Court on automatic appeal. However, due to the amendment of theRules on Appeal, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals. In the Court of

Appeals, the case had to be re-raffled several times before it was eventually assigned toPresiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. for the writing of the decision.

On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five, affirmedthe decision of the Regional Trial Court, with three members concurring and onedissenting.


4/6

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not accused- appellants constitutional rights were violated when theinformation against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use ofmasks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks felloff; and

2. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled,on the basis of the evidence, that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.

HELD:

1. No. Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrasewearing masks and/or other forms of disguise in the information does notviolate the constitutional rights of the accused-appellants. As that everyaggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information, it wasincumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of wearingmasks and/or other forms of disguise in the information in order for all theevidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court. Failure tostate an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not beappreciated as such.

The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to provethat the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them fromincluding disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in allegingdisguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment ofidentity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was,therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission ofthe offense they were being charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.

2. The Regional Trial Court correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that

accused-appellants were sufficiently identified, while, the Court of Appeals erredin finding the accused-appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries. As ageneral rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the appellatecourt, are given great weight and credence on review. In People v. LeticiaLabarias, the Supreme Court stated that:

It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court on thereasonable assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it,particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of themselves by theirdeportment on the stand. The exception that makes the rule is where suchfindings are clear ly arb i t ra ry or e r roneous as when they are ta in ted wi th b ias orhos t i l i ty or are so lacking in bas is as to suggest that they were reached

without the careful study and perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial decision. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, a total of eleven witnesses for the prosecution and forty-twowitnesses for the defense were put on the stand from 1995 to 2001. The trialcourt acquitted six and convicted five of the accused. On the basis of thesenumbers alone, it cannot be said that the trial court acted arbitrarily or that itsdecision was so lacking in basis that it was arrived at without a judicious andexhaustive study of all the evidence presented.


5/6


6/6

According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, theaccused-appellants were correctly charged with murder. Article 248 states:

ARTICLE. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished byreclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendantcircumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armedmen, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons toinsure or afford impunity; x x x x

The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a placewhere they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attackby rival fraternity men. The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked withlead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was withtheir arms. In a situation where they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would beimpossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happenedin less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystandersbeing able to help them until after the incident.

The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for thevictims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, waspresent in this case.

legres case digest_bday case_vv

Documents