This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be determined although a number of factors have been considered, including, but not always confined to, (1) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement, (2) the place where the statement is made, (3) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given, (4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto, and (5) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself.[50] | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| However, pursuant to current jurisprudence, we deem it proper to give an additional award for moral damages to the heirs of the victim.[50] No proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of moral damages, and the award is essentially by way of indemnity or reparation.[51] Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict can be awarded to the heirs of the victim by proof alone of such fact of death.[52] Moral damages are not awarded to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim or his family as the proximate result of the wrongful act and they are recoverable where a criminal offense results in physical injuries which culminate in the death of the victim.[53] Incapable of exact pecuniary estimation, the assessment of such damages is left to the discretion of the court.[54] The award is not meant to enrich the victim at the expense of the accused. An award of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) is commensurate to the emotional suffering of the heirs of the victim.[55] | |||||