This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is true that Leonila was not able to name appellant when she was first asked by the police at the hospital regarding the identity of the assailant. This fact alone, however, does not erode Leonila's credibility considering the circumstances attending the inquiry. It must be noted that Leonila was questioned by the police just a few hours after she witnessed the killing of the victim who is her fellow vendor. Such a shocking experience can verily create confusion especially in the mind of a fifty-year old woman. We are aware that the workings of the human mind, under emotional stress, are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations: some may shout, some may faint, others may be shocked into insensibility.[19] It is not improbable that Leonila was able to reconstruct the entire incident in her mind only after her initial shock has waned. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to damages awarded by the trial court, modification is in order. Civil indemnity ought to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased Antonio Calaycay. For when death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim, without need of further evidence or proof of damages.[79] | |||||