This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-04-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| These sworn statements of the spouses Siena are straightforward and uncomplicated. In the simplest of terms, they narrated how Mr. Siena was approached by respondents, the actual handing out of money, and the warning not to tell the incident to anyone. We see no reason to doubt their credibility, nor any motive for them to make up the story. They are not employees of petitioner; even respondents admitted that they could not think of any motive why Siena would accuse them of extortion.[23] The testimonies of persons not shown to be harboring any motive to depose falsely against an employee must be given due credence, particularly where no rational motive is shown why the employer would single out an employee for dismissal unless the latter were truly guilty.[24] And even where motive is established, the same does not put in doubt the positive identification of the accused.[25] | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, a modification of the damages is in order. The trial court awarded P20,000 as actual damages, not supported by evidence on record. Actual damages can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[25] Nonetheless, under Article 2224 in lieu of actual damages, temperate damages may be recovered as it has been shown that the victim's family suffered some pecuniary loss although the amount cannot be proved with certainty.[26] For this reason, the P20,000 award shall be for temperate damages. Further, conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, moral damages is increased to P50,000.[27] | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Treachery is also alleged in the information indicting the accused. There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."[78] The essence of alevosia is the swift and unexected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim's part.[79] The fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched.[80] Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.[81] In this case, the suddenness of the shooting without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself, clearly qualified the crime with treachery.[82] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to damages, the award of P50,000.00 as compensatory or actual damages must be disallowed since it is not supported by receipts.[29] However, the heirs of the victim are entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity under our current rulings.[30] The award of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, being supported by the testimony of the victim's widow, is sustained under Article 2206 (3) of the New Civil Code. Under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed "when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." There being no aggravating circumstances, the award of P20,000.00 as corrective or exemplary damages should be deleted. | |||||