Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL DEANG

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183703 2009-01-20	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO SAMENIANO VELASCO JR., J.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 26, 2008 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02525 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. The CA's award of civil indemnity in the amount of PhP 50,000 and the trial court's award of moral damages of PhP 50,000 to the heirs of the victim in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence[18] are accordingly AFFIRMED. No costs.
	GR No. 181043 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MILLANO MUIT TINGA, J.
The civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00.[43] The award of civil indemnity may be granted without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[44] In line with jurisprudence, the moral damages should also be increased to P 500,000.00.[45]
	GR No. 155256 2004-07-30	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO MEDINA DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Thus, Eduardo's defense of alibi must fail in view of the positive identification by Henry Aniversario. As held in the case People v. Deang,[15] "[a]libi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. For this reason, it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by witnesses. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission." By Eduardo's own testimony, Padre Garcia was only thirty (30) minutes away by ordinary public transportation from the town proper of Lipa City where Calye Pogi is located. Even the testimony of Gerardo Conti does not aid Eduardo's defense. Gerardo Conti testified that on 25 December 2000, he last saw Eduardo at 6:00 p.m. Since the killing occurred at 7:30 p.m., Eduardo's presence in Padre Garcia at 6:00 p.m. does not totally negate the possibility that he could have left Padre Garcia immediately after Gerardo Conti left as it was physically possible to travel from Padre Garcia to Calye Pogi in thirty (30) minutes.
	GR Nos. 139474-75 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO PABILLARE Y VARONA PER CURIAM
Going back to the penalty imposable, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[33] There being a demand for ransom in this case, an aggravating circumstance, an award of P25,000.00 as damages to the victim is in order.[34]
	GR No. 133228-31 2002-07-30	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO TIZON KAPUNAN, J.
self-serving testimonies that they were denied of such rights cannot hold water. Appellants did not show that the police investigators were impelled by any ill motive to falsely testify against appellants. In the absence of such motive, police officers are presumed to have acted regularly and to have afforded appellants their constitutional rights when they elicited the extra-judicial statements.[45] Moreover, appellants' extra-judicial statements were subscribed to before Asst. Prosecutor Manuel Cardinal who testified that he asked the appellants if they were forced by the police to sign their statements. They declared that everything was of their own free will.
	GR No. 137676 2001-09-27	PEOPLE v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
More importantly, appellant's alibi cannot overcome the positive identification[32] made by Macapugay and Pasco that he (appellant) and his co-accused shot the victim.
	GR No. 144113 2001-06-28	EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The award of P20,000.00 as actual damages, however, should be deleted for lack of documentary evidence to substantiate Rafael Atienza's claim that his family incurred this amount for his son's wake and internment.[41] On the other hand, in addition to the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim in accordance with our recent rulings.[42]