Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    People Vs Valdez, GR No 175602, February 13, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Maya07
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case involving two accused, Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, who were both convicted of three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Eduardo Valdez then appealed to the Supreme Court while Edwin Valdez withdrew his appeal. The Supreme Court found Eduardo guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder and reduced his sentence. Edwin then requested that the same ruling apply to him. The Supreme Court granted Edwin's request, citing a rule that a favorable appellate judgment can apply to co-accused who did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Valdez, GR No 175602, February 13, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Maya07
    48 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case involving two accused, Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, who were both convicted of three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Eduardo Valdez then appealed to the Supreme Court while Edwin Valdez withdrew his appeal. The Supreme Court found Eduardo guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder and reduced his sentence. Edwin then requested that the same ruling apply to him. The Supreme Court granted Edwin's request, citing a rule that a favorable appellate judgment can apply to co-accused who did not appeal.

    Original Title

    People vs Valdez, GR No 175602, February 13, 2013

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case involving two accused, Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, who were both convicted of three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Eduardo Valdez then appealed to the Supreme Court while Edwin Valdez withdrew his appeal. The Supreme Court found Eduardo guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder and reduced his sentence. Edwin then requested that the same ruling apply to him. The Supreme Court granted Edwin's request, citing a rule that a favorable appellate judgment can apply to co-accused who did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views2 pages

    People Vs Valdez, GR No 175602, February 13, 2013

    Uploaded by

    Maya07
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case involving two accused, Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, who were both convicted of three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Eduardo Valdez then appealed to the Supreme Court while Edwin Valdez withdrew his appeal. The Supreme Court found Eduardo guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder and reduced his sentence. Edwin then requested that the same ruling apply to him. The Supreme Court granted Edwin's request, citing a rule that a favorable appellate judgment can apply to co-accused who did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    175602 February 13, 2013

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. P02 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN
    VALDEZ, Accused-Appellants.

    Facts:

    The two accused were tried for three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and was
    convicted each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered them to pay to
    the heirs of each victim a total of ₱193,000.00 for actual damages, civil indemnity, and moral
    damages.

    The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC, subject to the modification that each of the accused pay
    to the heirs of each victim a total of ₱150,000.00 for civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate
    damages, and exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.

    The two accused then came to the Court on final appeal, but, Edwin Valdez filed a motion to
    withdraw appeal, which the Court granted thereby deeming Edwin’s appeal closed and terminated.

    On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez,
    finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and meting on him
    for each count of homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to
    17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum and a total sum of ₱125,000.00 for civil indemnity, moral
    damages, and temperate damages, plus costs of suit.

    Subsequently, Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter where he pleaded for
    the application to him of the judgment promulgated on January 18, 2012 on the ground that the
    judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the Court erred in granting Edwin Valdez the application of the judgement
    promulgated on January 18, 2012, finding his co-accused, Eduardo Valdez, guilty of homicide
    instead of murder.

    Ruling:

    We grant Edwin’s plea based on Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which relevantly
    provides:

    Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. – (a) An appeal taken by one or more of
    several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of
    the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

    In this connection, the Court has pronounced in Lim v. Court of Appeals that the benefits of this
    provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or not.

    In the foregoing cases, all the accused appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one
    reason or another, the conviction became final and executory. Nevertheless, the Court still applied to
    them the favorable judgment in favor of their co-accused. The Court notes that the Decision dated
    September 30, 2005 in G.R. No. 128959 stated, "'the verdict of guilt with respect to Lim [herein
    petitioner] had already become final and executory." In any event, the Court cannot see why a
    different treatment should be given to petitioner, given that the judgment is favorable to him and
    considering further that the Court's finding in its Decision dated September 30, 2005 specifically
    stated that "the publication of the subject advertisement by petitioner and Lim cannot be deemed by
    this Court to have been done with actual malice."

    You might also like